Tag Archives: Micheletti

Editorial, English, Honduras, Venezuela

Honduras’ president Lobo licks dictator’s boot

President Pepe Lobo is figuratively licking the boot of his country’s main enemies, and not just in words, but by trying to execute a self-coup, an autogolpe, by overstepping the separation of powers in the most perverse way. He is trying to illegally replace the Supreme Court.

The president of Honduras, Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo Sosa, was elected in November 2009, after the previous elected president Manuel Zelaya had been deposed on June 28 for ignoring a binding verdict from the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ). Powerful friends of Zelaya, who have an extraordinary influence over the global public opinion, made sure that his legal deposal got labeled a military coup in the minds of all who didn’t look under the surface. As a result Honduras interim president Micheletti was not recognized by any country. President Lobo has been recognized by perhaps a 100 countries by now, but not by a number of countries in Latin America, and they block the readmission to OAS. It is to achieve that readmission that Lobo now is taking actions that cannot be described as anything but boot-licking.

The countries that don’t recognize Honduras are the ALBA countries, the allies of Chavez’ Venezuela, and Castro’s Cuba. The friend of Zelaya that I mentioned is non other than Hugo Chavez. He used his ministry of propaganda, which has an international satellite TV channel at its disposal in the form of TeleSUR, to create the global image of the event. They stage events and have “news actors” in the form of paid demonstrators who create scenes for the cameras, while at the same time other staffers, pretending to be demonstrators as well, use force to keep the other media from covering what they are doing. They go as far as firing firearms, and whether by accident or on purpose it seems that it was they who killed the 19-year old outside Tegucigalpa’s airport on July 5th, 2009. Their version of events is spread by many blogs that appear to represent grassroots in many countries, but which in reality most likely are all coordinated if not controlled from Havana, Cuba.

Against this media super-power Honduras has not much more than a handful of bloggers.

Maybe you think I wrote Cuba by mistake instead of Venezuela above. No, it was no mistake. You see, Hugo Chavez turns out to be surrounded by only Cubans, led by non other than Comandante Ramiro Valdez, who fought with Castro in the Cuban Revolution. With Chavez admiring Fidel Castro, he is effectively just a capataz, a farm foreman, for Castro. It is a fitting description also because Cuba is poor and Venezuela is the “farm” that feeds Cuba. Not at least with oil.

Castro is also using his capataz Chavez to buy other countries in Latin America, by including them in the ALBA group (the “Bolivarian Revolution” alliance): Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and some minor islands. Honduras joined under Zelaya but left again under Micheletti.

When Lobo took office his very first act was to allow Zelaya to leave the country, in spite of there being pending court cases against him for very severe corruption. The ALBA countries refuse to recognize Lobo as president if he doesn’t remove those charges against Zelaya. Having constitutional separation of powers, neither the president nor the national Congress (CN) can interfere with the judiciary; nevertheless, they are trying as hard as they can. The word now is that they will vote in CN to fire the attorney general and all the justices of the CSJ – even though that, too, would appear to be unconstitutional.

In essence, Lobo is licking the boot of his country’s enemies by trying to please those dictators while violating the oath he took to obey the Constitution. The word treason comes to mind.

What will this lead to? Assume that they take the vote and it passes. The decision could of course be challenged in court, by those that are supposedly fired. At that point Lobo, who acts as the capataz of Honduras for Castro, could say that the CSJ is attacking the CN, even though it is the other way around. Who wins in the court of public opinion is a question of who has the most effective propaganda at his disposal. But who wins on the ground in Honduras is a question of whose orders the military chose to obey; the president’s, or those of the Supreme Court? Assuming that the president disobeys the court. But if he does, then he may be deposed legally the same way that Zelaya was.

What Castro, Chavez, Zelaya, and Lobo are counting on is that if it fails the first time it will succeed the second.

Honduras must braze itself. The attack directed from Havana, Cuba, aimed at introducing maffia-style narco-communism all over the Americas continues. Honduras has won one battle but the war rages on. So what to do?

Attack is the best defense, they say. Instead of waiting for the wolf to attack again, seek him out and fight him where he lives. In other words, cooperate with the democratic opposition in the countries from where the wolf is attacking. Cuba is where the brain is, but what matters most is the money. Venezuela is the source of the money.

Chavez’ has just made himself dictator by a Hitler-style coup. The vast majority are hostile to the Cuban model, yet that is what is being implemented by Chavez. The repression of the opposition has started, but most dissidents are still not jailed. However, with the new censorship laws it is just a matter of time until free speech has been so suppressed that Cuban-style conditions take over, and effective opposition becomes impossible. The optimal time for a revolution against Chavez’ dictatorship is just now.

Such an anti-Communist revolution in Venezuela would benefit all countries that are being threatened by the narco-communist plans that are being financed with the oil income that is being stolen from the people of Venezuela. This is why Hondurans would be wise to go online and help their brothers and sisters in Venezuela to spread the truth about their country internationally. It is essential as a balance to the regime propaganda. It would also give the judiciary in Honduras, and the military, and the opposition parliamentarians, fortitude in resisting the pressure from the dictator’s boot on their necks.

English, News, Political crisis 2009

US reaction to Honduran Crisis 2009

The wikileaked daily security briefing from the US Department of State, June 29, 2009, the morning after Honduras’ president Manuel Zelaya had been deposed, reveals that DoS did not label it a coup d’état. On the contrary, the text starts (in paragraph 13) with stating that “Honduran military forces arrested President Manuel Zelaya June 28 according to orders issued by the National Congress and the Supreme Court of Honduras.”

Thus, with access to information from the ground in Honduras, USA DoS did not label it a coup. The text continues: “Zelaya was taken to a local air force base and flown to Costa Rica. Emergency Action Committee (EAC) Tegucigalpa subsequently met to discuss the ramifications of the seizure of the president by host-cost country military forces. The RSO noted the general climate in the capital was calm … Later in the day, Congress officially named Roberto Micheletti interim president”. The remainder relates only to the safety of US personnel on the ground.

From this security briefing, classified as SECRET//NOFORN (secret, no foreigners), two things are apparent: First, that the US Department of State did not regard the event as a coup; and second, that there is no indication of US involvement.

In combination with the cable sent by Ambassador Llorens July 23, this cable seems to confirm the suspicions in Honduras that the Department of State and the Embassy were not on the same page. While the DoS clearly seems to regard the change of president as legal, the ambassador clearly did not.

A detailed account of the events of June 28 have recently become available in a 622-page Spanish book by Honduran journalist Armando Cerrato (see Honduras Weekly). Among other things, he details how Zelaya was dressed, and what happened at his arrest, citing eye-witness accounts from the president’s own neighbors.

The very pajamas that Mel Zelaya was NOT wearing when he was flown to Costa Rica.
The very pajamas that Mel Zelaya was NOT wearing when he was flown to Costa Rica.

It turns out that a lot of the “facts” that has stirred the public opinion outside Honduras has been fabrications and propaganda lies. From the pajamas story to the concentration camps, insanely hysterical lies have been spread by Zelaya and his associates. Many of whom are criminals, according to another leaked cable, from the former ambassador – who warned of the power-grab that Zelaya was attempting.

The Truth Commission is still active in Honduras, so these leaked cables may be taken into account in their work to find out what happened. It is getting time to close this chapter. There are lots of facts that are not in dispute.

Nobody disputes that Zelaya was trying to hold a constituting constitutional assembly, nor that such an assembly is unconstitutional in Honduras. The difference is what weight one puts on the fact that it is unconstitutional. Zelaya’s supporters don’t care one bit that it is unconstitutional. His detractors do; they want rule of law.

Nobody disputes that the Supreme Court of Justice had ordered Zelaya to stop his plans. The difference is just that Zelaya’s supporters don’t care what the court says. His detractors do; they want rule of law.

Nobody disputes that Zelaya openly mocked the Supreme Court of Justice, the Election Tribunal, and the National Congress. The difference is just that Zelaya’s supporters don’t care. His detractors do; they want rule of law.

Nobody disputes that it was illegal for the military to send Zelaya in exile, but while Zelaya’s supporters regard that as proof of it being a military coup, his detractors don’t. They agree that it was illegal, but given that Zelaya would be deposed as president anyway by completely legal means, they see it as a justifiable crime to prevent the loss of life (the militaries have already been charged for it, and the court dismissed the charges for exactly that reason).

There is only one thing that speaks for it being a coup, and that is the way in which the president physically was removed from office. Everything else speaks for it being a constitutional succession in defense of an attempted coup by the president himself. So ask yourself, what matters more for justice: appearance, or substance?

Editorial, English, Political crisis 2009

USA warned Zelaya dangerous for democracy a year before he tried to overthrow the constitution

1 Comment

In a cable written by former US ambassador to Honduras, Charles Ford, to his successor Hugo Llorens, on May 15, 2008, Ford warns Llorens about Honduras’ president Manuel Zelaya in no uncertain terms.

The cable represents a staunch warning of an imminent threat to democracy in a country that traditionally had been a close ally to the USA.

Ford’s account reflects getting to know the Honduran president during two and a half years of sometimes rather close contacts. It led Ford to conclude that Zelaya is “almost a caricature of a land-owner ‘caudillo’ in terms of his leadership style and tone,” a ‘caudillo’ being akin to a dictator.

The ambassador’s description of the president is blunt: “Zelaya’s principal goal in office is to enrich himself and his family while leaving a public legacy as a martyr who tried to do good but was thwarted at every turn by powerful, unnamed interests” (the emphasis is mine). He hammers home this assessment by immediately adding that Zelaya ”would be quite comfortable as a martyr who tried but failed honorably in his attempt to seek out social justice for the poor.”

Ford finishes the summary of the cable by warning of the anti-democratic tendencies: ”[Zelaya] resents the very existence of the Congress, the Attorney General and Supreme Court. Over his two and a half years in office, he has become increasingly surrounded by those involved in organized crime activities” (again, my emphasis).

The cable ends on a rather pessimistic note: “I believe we can engage Zelaya intensely in the hope of so as to minimizing damage to Honduran democracy and the economy.”

With the benefit of hindsight, Charles Ford’s warning appears to have been prophetic. Manuel Zelaya tried to hold a referendum in 2009, aimed at establishing a “constituting constitutional assembly.” Since it would have implied to overthrow the constitution of Honduras, it was declared illegal and ordered stopped by the Supreme Court (see video account of events, and an analysis I made in April 2010).

As Zelaya ignored the court and persisted with the plans for a referendum on June 28, 2009, he was arrested by the military at dawn, on an arrest order from the Supreme Court. However, due to the military illegally exiling him the act was deemed a coup d’état by other countries, in spite of the Congress in Honduras voting by a large majority to replace Zelaya by the person who was next in the succession line, Roberto Micheletti. This decision was later upheld by Congress, again by a very large vote margin. After Zelaya’s deposal the attorney general filed charges for a number of large corruption scandals, also involving a person mentioned by Ford in this cable.

Today Zelaya is living in exile in the Dominican Republic, refusing to return to his home country to face corruption charges. Just as Ford predicted in the leaked cable, Zelaya has become a martyr for the poor and those who consider his deposal a coup d’état.

It is noteworthy that the cable that Hugo Llorens sent home July 24, 2009, after Zelaya’s deposal, ignores completely what happened before June 28. The only reference to it is by saying that there was “near unanimity among the institutions of the state and the political class that Zelaya had abused his powers in violation of the Constitution” while at the same time saying that the violation was “not proven”.

This is disingenuous, since Zelaya had violated a direct court order, failing to take the required act within the deadline given (i.e., submit a report indicating obedience of a ruling, by June 25). The prosecutor thus had due cause to ask the court for an arrest warrant for the president, and the Supreme Court had the legal authority to issue that arrest warrant, as they did on June 26. Yet none of this is even mentioned by Hugo Llorens.

In combination, these two cables from Tegucigalpa released so far by Wikileaks, raise questions regarding the role of ambassador Llorens in Zelaya’s attempt to overthrow the constitution of the Republic of Honduras. The fact that Llorens and Zelaya knew each other from previous dealings in the 1990’s has been brought up before. This is something that the US Congress can look into, and I predict they will, once the Republicans take over the House next year. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, from Miami, has made herself known as a strong supporter of the defenders of democracy in Honduras, and she will take over the chairmanship of the foreign affairs committee. So I expect action, and that the truth will win in the end.

Analysis, English, Honduras

A Honduran Synthesis

Looking at Honduras from a long distance, in space and also more and more in time since last year’s political crisis, this is what I see: A democratic country that is de facto controlled by an oligarchy, through deep-running corruption and state control that goes way beyond what most western democracies would be comfortable with. By price fixing and splitting up the business in segments, so that each of the main Families gets some solid source of income, status quo is preserved. The result is a rich elite, but a poor country.

The anthithesis of this, the opposite extreme, is communism, such as the so-called Socialism of the XXI’st Century, that Venezuela and Cuba are doing their best to spread in Latin America. The methods include buying presidential candidates or presidents, such as Zelaya in Honduras, who then set in motion a process to change the country’s constitution. The new constitution calls for democratic socialism with a large degree of populism. In essence, populism is the opposite of institutionality. The effect of this change, if implemented fully, is a formally democratic dictatorship, where the ruler has at his disposal a herd of election cattle. Since this isn’t the first time in history that this strategy has been used, several countries have articles in their constitutions designed to make it impossible. Honduras is one of those countries.

What happened in Honduras June 28, 2009, was the end of an attempt to overrun the constitution and introduce the antithetical form of government, by a person who himself belongs to the oligarchy: Manuel Zelaya. It was an attempt at replacing one corrupt system with another corrupt system (in fact, even more corrupt according to many sources). Instead of an elite ostensibly ruling for the upper class, it would be part of the same elite ostensibly ruling for the working class. But of this came naught, since all the institutions of government objected to it in unison, and stopped it.

During the months that followed, there was a widespread hope that finally corruption would be dealt with, that the rule of law would be established, and that liberal democracy had triumphed in Honduras. Even the color of this movement reflected that; instead of blue or red, this was the white movement, using the color of peace. Rather than dominated by the elite or the working class, this was a movement of the middle class, a newly politically awakened middle class.

A year after the election of a new president – Porfirio Lobo from the nationalist party – it seems that his ideal is very close to the old thesis: Keep the rich in power. He allows the extreme left to express their opinions, partly because they have the international spotlight on them still, partly because their message is so foreign to most Hondurans that they do not constitute a serious opposition. However, he has repeatedly expressed discontent with criticism from the middle class, and even gone as far as to silence critics by threatening to withdraw their citizenship. It seems that the middle class is where he sees the real threat coming from – and he would be right.

It is only the educated middle class that can bring about a real liberal democracy under the rule of law in Honduras. However, as yet there is no obvious leader for the movement (and, I might add, it may not be good for a person’s health to be that leader, in a country where even congressmen are chased down and murdered in broad daylight).

Still, we can already see that there is a political void, a space that a savvy politician could take and make into his or her platform for the next presidential election. To position himself, or herself, is key. To be seen as the synthesis, as appealing to the majority in the middle, while not alienating any reasonable person on either side. There are ample campaign themes available for the one who wants to run for the middle, but which one(s) to pick will depend on the candidate’s background.

English, Honduras

Why the Dems may lose Miami -> Florida -> USA

This year Florida will elect a new senator, in a three-way race between the Democrat Kendrick Meek, the Independent Charlie Crist, and the Republican Marco Rubio. Chances are slim that Meek will win. This is usually attributed to Democratic voters voting for “anybody who can beat Rubio,” but there may be another factor that the pundits have missed.

It is the traditional Achilles heel of the Democrats: Softness on foreign policy. The one causing the dissatisfaction was not Meek, but president Obama, secretary of state Clinton, and Senate foreign relations committee chairman Kerry. And the constituency group that this particularly affects are the Latinos.

Keep in mind that Miami is a Latino city, predominantly. And that Miami is big enough to flip the vote in all of Florida one way or the other. And that Florida is big enough to flip the national vote of president one way or the other – but I’m sure nobody will ever forget that.

Obama did get a significant support by Latinos in 2008, but that support has completely dissipated by now. There may be several reasons, but it seems to me that one reason in particular has not been getting the attention it deserves: Obama’s Latin America policy.

The crucial issue is Honduras

Actually, Honduras is just the tip of the iceberg, the overall issue being the spread of communism in Latin America, which the Democrats seem to do nothing to stop. In fact, it appears to many as though they actually like this change. And that is a sure way to lose voters in Miami…

The different perspective does not come from a difference in world view, but in a difference in information. Latinos typically watch Spanish-language news, the biggest of which is of course Univisión. These networks cover Latin America closely, while English-language networks give about the same amount of coverage to Latin America as they give to Mozambique, or Mongolia, or the Moon for that matter. When it comes to foreign countries about 99% of their coverage has been devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan the last few years.

When the president of Honduras was deposed on June 28, 2009, it therefore came as lightning from a clear sky, for the English-speakers in the U.S. Naturally, they believed the network when they said it was a military coup. They had no reason to think otherwise. English-speaking Democrats either agreed with Obama’s policy, or thought he didn’t go far enough.

Latinos (and others who prefer Spanish-language news due to it having higher quality), on the other hand, knew that a severe political crisis was playing out in Honduras. They knew that the president was openly defying the Supreme Court, the popularly elected Congress, all other institutions of government, and that he was leading a mob against his own military. They had heard over and over that he was suspected of carrying out an auto-golpe, and they knew that he was ignoring the checks and balances of the constitution. They also knew that several other presidents in Latin America had done the same thing in recent years, and that nobody had stopped them: Chávez, Correa, Morales.

When Honduras stopped Zelaya, many, if not most, Latinos in Miami considered it an anti-coup rather than a coup. Honduras became “the little country that could.” Virtually overnight, Obama-stickers disappeared from almost all cars in Miami.

When it comes to Latin America, Washington is rather ignorant. It is clear that at least some of them believe the outrageous lies and spin, no matter how lunatic it really is, that is being prepared by Hugo Chávez and signed by Mel Zelaya. Perhaps they haven’t realized that Mel sold his soul to Chávez to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Or perhaps they don’t understand what Chávez is up to. Or else, perhaps they haven’t been able to come up with a counter-strategy, so they just stall for time. Who knows.

Meanwhile, unless Obama clearly changes policy visavi Honduras within the next two weeks, my prediction is that Miami will vote for Charlie Crist. Marco Rubio is probably too extreme for the majority (“miamians” may be fiscally conservative, but they are socially progressive), so in an effort to make sure that he won’t win, I figure that many Dems will vote for Crist.

If Obama’s present policy continues for two more years, chances are it will be his last in the White House.

The option

What option does Obama have visavi Honduras? First and foremost, he must clearly distance himself from the outrageous lies that Zelaya is spreading. Secondly, he must make it clear that he understands that,

  1. the Supreme Court of Honduras had the legal authority to issue an arrest order for the president,
  2. there was due cause for the Supreme Court to issue that arrest warrant on June 26,
  3. that the military in Honduras is constitutionally authorized to carry out tasks only done by the police in most other nations (and that it was Zelaya who started using the military for police work on a systematic scale),
  4. that the expatriating of Zelaya was a crime, but that the expatriating of Zelaya does not in any way relieve Zelaya from responsibility for the crimes he carried out before being expatriated,
  5. that the behavior of the security forces during and after the expatriation of Zelaya has been the target of systematic demonization by a deliberately executed and very refined propaganda apparatus, directed by Venezuela’s ruler Hugo Chávez,
  6. that the interim president Micheletti did all that was in his power to maintain public order and security, and to safeguard human rights, in spite of an onslaught of attack by foreign agents, paid demonstrators, and vilification in international media,
  7. that the Attorney General did prosecute the military for the expatriation of Zelaya, and that the Supreme Court did take up the case, but dismissed charges, and
  8. that the Supreme Court of Justice, democratically and constitutionally selected, is the highest legal authority in the country, which means that their rulings are the final word in the matter, as regards the sovereign Republic of Honduras.

A speech to this effect would serve several important purposes: First, it would win back at least a part of the lost support among Latinos who don’t want to see communism take over their native countries. Second, it would assure Hondurans in Honduras that the world has not gone completely mad, and that the rule of law still is the principle upon which civilization is built. Third, it would send a message to president Ortega in Nicaragua that USA has not thrown in the towel to Chávez, so he better stop his plans for an auto-golpe.

Finally, and most importantly, it would set a firm base of law for negotiating a new social pact in Honduras. The spread of popular tyranny in Latin America can be stopped by making it clear that a “constituyente” (i.e., overthrowing the constitution and letting a few more or less self-appointed persons write a new one without democratic input) is totally unacceptable, and that stopping a constituyente by any legal means possible is not just acceptable, but the duty of all who have sworn an oath of office to defend the constitution.

Whatever Obama does, he has to evaluate the strategy carefully, as a seasoned chess player would. Unless he recognizes that Chávez is actively waging a cold war against him, he will stand no chance. Nor will the position of the United States of America in the World.

English, Honduras

World pushes Central America towards disaster

Through their response, the nations of the world are contributing to pushing the Central American nations of Nicaragua and Honduras towards disaster. They are already the poorest and second poorest countries of Latin America, and they are both in deep political crises of credibility in the rule of law.

The Nicaraguan president, former revolutionary leader Daniel Ortega, has stacked the Supreme Court illegally, is altering the Constitution illegally, and wants to run for re-election illegally. Yet the reaction from the world is almost non-existing.

The former Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, tried to stack the Supreme Court but was stopped by the president of Congress, Roberto Micheletti, tried to alter the Constitution but was stopped by the Supreme Court, and tried to make himself a dictator but was deposed by a near unanimous vote in Congress and the Supreme Court. The reaction of the world was to demand his reinstatement.

The stance of the world, including of course the U.S., seriously undermines the faith in the rule of law in Central America. The caudillo wannabe is rewarded, the democratic institutions are chastised.

If the world wanted to create chaos, conflict, even war, they couldn’t have devised a more efficient strategy than the one they are now implementing in Central America.

Several Viking time laws start with the statement “Countries are Built with Laws.” It reflects an understanding that functioning, peaceful societies require that there are rules that are universally accepted, and honored since there is confidence that they are enforced. What is going on in Central America is an undermining of these sentiments, since the presidents that attack the rule of law are seemingly rewarded, and the institutions and persons who defend the rule of law are punished by the world.

Yet, it may all be unintentional. As they say in Washington, never blame on malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

In the case of Zelaya, it is apparent to everyone that a crime was committed when he was sent to Costa Rica. Not knowing the background, the only possible conclusion would be that it was a military coup d’état. However, now that we all have had ample time to study the background, it is equally clear that the Supreme Court of Honduras had the legal authority to arrest the president; that they had due cause to arrest the president; and that they could relieve the president from office during the trials.

They issued an arrest order for the president, not an expatriation order. Expatriating him was a separate crime. Two wrongs don’t make one right. Yet the world demanded that Zelaya be reinstated. From a foreign perspective it seemed like a politically correct stance, not to say the only possible stance. I cannot criticize those who took that stance, since I would have done the same in their positions.

Yet, from a Honduran perspective it was impossible, since it would have meant disaster to reinstate Zelaya. He would rapidly have attacked those that acted to arrest him. To allow him to be reinstated and wield power would have been suicidal for the republic. Thus, I cannot criticize Micheletti either. Both sides did what they had to do.

Was there no possible compromise? The legally acceptable solution, to both sides, should have been to have Zelaya return to Honduras to face jail; to take up the process where it was interrupted. For him to turn himself over to the custody of the military, be brought before a judge, and the judge deciding if he should be removed from office or reinstated. In fact, this is exactly what Micheletti was proposing in the negotiations: That the Supreme Court decide on his reinstatement or not.

However, Zelaya responded by demanding that Congress take that decision, and Micheletti relented. As we know, Congress voted almost unanimously not to reinstate Zelaya.

In summary, although the process went bad when the military expatriated Zelaya, it was brought back on track with the Guaymuras agreement, where the topic of his reinstatement was decided (although it technically should have been done by the Supreme Court, one can argue that Zelaya gave up that right when he himself insisted that Congress should decide instead of the court).

Yet this resolution to the legal situation has not brought back peace and stability to Honduras. Why? It seems the largest problem is the lack of faith in the rule of law in Honduras.

It is very detrimental that other countries accuse the Supreme Court of violating the law.

For instance, the fact that the U.S. has revoked tourist visas for all members of the Supreme Court is a clear vote of lack of confidence in the highest judicial institution in Honduras. If the U.S. doesn’t trust the Supreme Court in Honduras, why would Hondurans? And if they don’t trust the Supreme Court, why would they obey the laws at all? It promotes the attitude that crime pays. And it does, in Honduras. The attitude is, I’m told, that if you don’t stuff your pockets illegally when you have a chance, you’re an idiot.

This attitude is reinforced by the policy of the U.S. and other countries.

So what to do instead?

First, the main principle in dealing with Honduras and Nicaragua must be to reinforce the faith in the rule of law, based, of course, on their domestic jurisprudence and experience, not on that of the U.S. All aspects of law enforcement and justice, including human rights, must be given top priority in institution-building support. This should be done with respect for the local conditions and experiences, to be effective.

A second point is respect for the democratic institutions, including direct diplomatic contacts that bypass the executive branch and go directly to the judicial and legislative branches. Name-calling must of course stop. It is so unprofessional for a staffer in the U.S. Senate to call Honduran Supreme Court justices and Congressmen “golpistas”.

A third point is how to deal with wannabe dictators. The OAS should intervene in the case of Nicaragua today. Once the court is stacked, the rule of law has ceased to exist. One cannot call Nicaragua a democracy any more; the coup d’état has already been sown and all that remains is to harvest it. The world should make clear that it will not accept having Ortega on the ballot, that it will lead to harsh sanctions.

The last point is to engage in the economy of these countries. Right now an environmental disaster is sailing up in Honduras. A beautiful and unique lake, Lago de Yojoa, is being destroyed by unsustainable fish farming. Within a few years the lake will die. Today it is still possible to develop eco-tourism as an alternate source of income in the community, but once the lake dies, so does that possibility. Yet the market forces inevitably drive the development towards that looming disaster. “Adult supervision” is desperately needed, but nothing can be done without risk capital willing to invest in tourism development, thus producing an opposing force to the one that is pressuring for unsustainable exploitation. For this to happen there must be stability and faith in the rule of law. See point 1.

Among those who benefit from the present policy is the military-industrial complex, who get to sell more weapons and security systems when the time comes to put out the fire in Central America, that the present policy promotes. Furthermore, those that sell systems for border security benefit, since ever more Central Americans are destined to migrate illegally to the U.S. Those who hire illegals in the U.S. will also benefit, because the supply of cheap labor will continue. Also the drug cartels in Mexico will benefit, since they can exploit the migrants and force them to work like mules, smuggling cocaine to the U.S. (and if they refuse, they are shot).

As you see, much is at stake also for the U.S. of A. It is time to wisen up.

Footnote: Former US ambassador to Honduras, Charles A Ford, wrote an analysis in June this year in which he – in my opinion – correctly and succinctly described the situation. Read it!

Honduras, Svenska

“Tacka Micheletti!”, skrek folket då Lobo svors in

5 Comments

Idag svors Pope Lobo in som ny president i Honduras. Då han i talet tackade president Oscar Arias från Costa Rica buade folket så det hördes ända till Miami (via webTV då). Likaså då han nämnde president Fernandez från Dominikanska Republiken, vilken förhandlade fram ett avtal enligt vilket Zelaya kan lämna Honduras och få politisk amnesti. Och återigen då han nämnde USAs ambassadör Hugo Llorens, och OAS, Organisationen för Amerikanska Stater. Då han däremot nämnde Hillary Clinton så var det en mera blandad reaktion, och slutligen då turen kom till Panamas president Martinelli så applåderade folket och han ställde sig upp för att ta emot hyllningarna.

Men sedan hände det mest anmärkningsvärda. Någon ropade “Tacka Micheletti!” och folket började skandera “Tacka Micheletti, tacka Micheletti!”. Men det gjorde inte Pepe. Inte en enda gång nämnde han med namn den man som genom sin heroiska men otacksamma uppgift räddade demokratin i Honduras, och såg till att valet vilket Pepe vann över huvud taget kunde hållas.

Sverige fanns på plats med en diplomatisk representation.

Manuel Zelaya flyger ikväll till Dominikanska Republiken, trots att han inte sökt eller fått politisk asyl. Han har fått politisk amnesti i Honduras genom ett belut i kongressen imorse, som undertecknades av presidenten direkt då han svurits in (redan i stadion!), men han är fortfarande efterlyst för bland annat korruption och förskingring av 1,5 miljoner dollar. Hur denna fria lejd hänger ihop med lagar och folkrätt har ännu inte rapporterats i Honduras. Högsta domstolens ordförande har antytt att saken kan komma inför honom om någon väcker talan, varför han inte vill gå in på juridiken.

Som en honduran skrev i en tidnings kommentarsutrymme: “Leve Zelaya – men så långt som möjligt från Honduras!”

Media: SvD, GP, AB, och en blogg av en anställd på USAs ambassad i Tegucigalpa som har lite ytterligare skvaller – t.ex. att då amerikanerna kom så fanns det inga stolar till dem. Hon bekräftar att uppåt hälften av folket gick därifrån i protest då Lobo tackade Insulza, Aries, Llorens med flera.

English, Honduras

Micheletti receives a hero’s farewell

1 Comment

His last hour in office, president Micheletti is attending a mass in the Suyapa Basilica together with his cabinet, co-workers, and the Union Civica Democratica (UCD). He went there to thank God for helping him save Honduras democracy through the constitutional crisis created by president Zelaya.

When Micheletti arrived he was greeted with a 2 minute standing ovation.

Roberto Micheletti in the Suyapa Basilica in Tegucigalpa this morning.
Roberto Micheletti in the Suyapa Basilica in Tegucigalpa this morning.

Meanwhile, Hondurans are gathering at the stadium in Tegucigalpa for the swearing in of the next popularly elected president, Porfirio Lobo Sosa. Guests of honor include foreign presidents and dignitaries from a large number of countries (including Sweden).

Also meanwhile, the sickening distortions in foreign press continue. Such as the lie that Zelaya came to Costa Rica in pajamas. Could it have something to do with the fact that there were over 130 members of the press in Honduras on that date, with hotel room and rental cars paid for by Zelaya? Could there be hypocrisy in media, can reporters be bribed? Nah, that can’t be possible, they are the bulwark of truth, right?

English, Honduras

Militaries exonerated in Honduras

1 Comment

The military leadership in Honduras was today exonerated by the Supreme Court of Justice, for having allowed the deposed president, Zelaya, to leave the country. Their orders, issued by the same court, had been to arrest him. The chief justice, Rivera, accepted the defense argument that they had acted in a “situation of real danger in Honduras” and under a threat of an “institutional collapse of the state.”

The defense had presented evidence that there were about 950 armed foreigners in Honduras on June 28, who presented a clear and present danger to the country.

Six militaries were prosecuted, and all of them were exonerated of all charges.

With this trial, all remaining doubt about the legality of the deposing of Zelaya is gone. This is a complete vindication for president Micheletti, who is serving his last day in office today. Tomorrow the newly elected president, Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo, will be sworn in.

Lobo’s first act, already before becoming president, was to sign an agreement with the Dominican president, in which Pepe promised to give Zelaya free passage from the Brazilian embassy, where he has been since September 21, to Dominica. He will do this immediately after taking office tomorrow. Pepe has been harshly criticized in Honduras for this act, and it is still not clear that it will be considered legal, partly because it does not adhere to the convention dealing with political asylum.

Also today, the national congress is debating an amnesty for Zelaya and others for the events around June 28, when Zelaya was de facto attempting a coup d’état. Pepe claims that people want an amnesty, but what I hear is just a giant roar from all quarters that nobody wants amnesty for criminals. Many consider Zelaya a gigantic criminal, but foreign press tends to spin it such that it is Micheletti who needs amnesty for a “coup d’état” – even though it was no coup d’état. Luckily, justice is made in courts and not in newspapers.

The real problem is that international media will take an amnesty bill, if passed, as the Congress confessing to being guilty of doing a coup d’état. Based on the comments from the congressional leaders, they seem completely oblivious to this. Don’t they have Internet in Honduras? Don’t they have a War Room with staff who follow international media’s reporting???

Media: BBC, NY Times, and a thorough blog on the subject, La Gringas Blogicito.

Honduras, Svenska

Micheletti held the fortress until help came

Micheletti held the fortress for over half a year, waiting for help. The proverbial cavalry came January 6, when the prosecutor indicted the militaries who sent Zelaya to Costa Rica instead of to jail, as their orders said they should. Through this court case it was finally demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that the deposing of Zelaya was a legal affair, and not a military coup. The prosecutor and Supreme Court thus came to the rescue, bringing heavy guns for the defense of the position. Micheletti held out in a battle against wind and tide so that the prosecutor got the time he needed to mount the case.

For the first time Honduras now has a very strong defense. However, at almost the same time, Micheletti has to hand over the helm to Lobo. His first act he did already before taking over, and it was to open the back door to the fortress. He went to Dominica to sign a unilateral promise to let the coupster Zelaya leave. It remains to be seen if he will close the back door again and continue to defend the position, or if he will abandon all defenses once he takes office, and declare defeat.

In other words, will Lobo continue to defend the democratic institutions of Honduras, or will he throw them to the wolves? Will he say, after his inauguration, that what Micheletti did was wrong?

On another note, the self-labeled Resistencia has decided to keep “resisting” Lobo, since they don’t recognize his election. Nor that of the Congress (that started their session today), nor that of any governor, mayor, or any other elected office-holder of the country for that matter, by extension, since they don’t recognize the November 29 elections at all. They claim that they will “peacefully” resist until a constitutional assembly is created. First, there is a difference between peaceful and legal. Just because it is peaceful does not mean it is legal. Second, a constitutional assembly is illegal, and unconstitutional. Especially since they are receiving money from abroad. Thus, it is equally correct to say that they will continue with their treasonous activities, their attempts at insurrection and revolution, using criminal means. This is how it must be described by any honest reporter. Otherwise, how can we understand why people get arrested?

To the credit of the leftist party UD, they left the Resistencia just before the election, electing to participate in the democratic process. The realized that to accomplish change, one must work within the law, with democratic means. Their reward for this is that they now are in the leadership of the Congress, for the first time today, and that they may have a seat in Lobo’s government, which will be announced no later than tomorrow.

These choices by Cesar Ham, the party leader, are commendable. The decision of Lobo to reach out to him is, too. That is the kind of dialogue across the political and social spectrum that Honduras needs.

However, if Lobo got this cooperation by promising to declare what Congress did last year a coup, then he would be selling out the fortress; then he would be opening the back doors of the castle to let the enemy soldiers in that way, to have their way with the people inside. The one who lives to the end of the week will soon know the answer.