Tag Archives: OAS

The Organization of American States is lost

Nine years ago the OAS members signed a special charter tasking the organization with safeguarding democracy in the Americas. Yet they did nothing when former president Zelaya of Honduras violated the Constitution. They did nothing when president Ortega of Nicaragua now violates its Constitution. They were quick to side with president Correa’s questionable claims in Ecuador, calling it a coup attempt although witnesses say that the president himself ordered the military to fire on the hospital.

While OAS utterly failed to criticize these three ALBA presidents, affiliated with Hugo Chávez, their secretary general, Insulza, has humiliated Honduras at any chance he has got since that country stopped the attempted coup d’état by Zelaya on June 28, 2009.

Insulza’s organization even pushes for Honduras’s new president, Lobo, to violates his country’s constitution by discussing to hold a constituyente, something that is explicitly illegal in the Honduran constitution. The idea of a constituyente was even put aside “for ever” by Zelaya himself in the agreement he signed with Micheletti. Yet, the OAS (!) is now bringing it back on the agenda.

Even the Washington Post is today calling OAS hypocrites, since they have done nothing to stop the blatant disregard for democracy in Nicaragua lately. They write, “Mr. Ortega’s assault on Nicaragua’s constitution makes both Mr. Zelaya and the Honduran army look timid.”

Latin America is overflowing with cocaine money, especially the isthmus. This obviously corrupts, lower levels, middle levels, high levels, national levels, and – apparently – also international levels such as the OAS. What other explanation can there be?

Latin America’s Vanishing Democracy a Threat to Peace

Nicaragua cannot be called a democracy any more with a straight face. The president has stacked the Supreme Court, had them declare that he can run for re-election contrary to the constitution, had a new constitution printed when Congress refused to change it to his liking, and ignores blatant election fraud such as tossing 100% of opponent votes in the garbage bin.

This appears to be part of a plan to perpetuate the Ortegas at power. The plan is spearheaded by Venezuela, backed by Cuba, and includes Ecuador and Bolivia, while El Salvador and the Dominican Republic are “candidates”. Also Honduras is on the list.

Until now, Honduras has been the only country to effectively fight back and stand up for democracy.

Unfortunately, it may have been a temporary victory. The new president, Lobo, by claiming to follow instructions from abroad by financial necessity, appears to be playing a double game. It would seem that he is on the one hand pretending to act as though Zelaya’s deposing last year was a coup d’état that his country now has to atone for, while on the other hand he is doing things in a way that benefits the South American cocaine communists. Examples include not funding the fight against crime sufficiently, while engaging groups that don’t recognize the legitimacy of his government in discussing plans for throwing out the constitution by holding a “constituyente” – even though the Supreme Court has already declared that unconstitutional.

Real democracy requires rule of law. The pseudo-democracy of Chavez is democracy only to the name. The society lacks rule of law, lacks respect for property, lacks respect for laws and the constitution, and cooperates more or less openly with criminal and terrorist organizations.

Chavez allegedly buys other countries for $1 billion per year. That way he also gains votes in international organizations. When the OAS and the UN turn into tools for criminals and terrorists, gradually changing the majority, then the whole international framework of peace and stability is endangered. Venezuela is already supplying uranium to Iran, and Russia has agreed to build nuclear reactors in Venezuela – a country in which narco-terrorists control part of the territory without objection from the government.

What happens with Honduras and Latin America is crucially important for the security analysis of any country, also Sweden. Unfortunately, Latin America does not even seem to be on the radar in Europe. It is all Africa and Asia, leaving Latina America for the US to “handle”. A task that they apparently are incapable of, given that the US itself has the same flaws in its constitution that makes systemic corruption possible and legal.

The war of aggression on Iraq suggests that some US Republicans are way too close to the military-industrial complex. The reaction of part of the US Democrats after Zelaya’s attempted coup d’état and resulting deposal in Honduras on June 28, 2009, suggests that they are closer than comfortable to the narco-communists of South America.

The only thing that can save peace, liberty, and democracy, is if normal people wake up from their complacency, stop believing the hate messages spread by those wanting to control them, and insist on the rule of law. The single most important objective is to insist on the rule of law, and to refuse to be scared silent.

Footnote: A few days after writing this, Washington Post had an editorial on the same topic, Nicaragua, Honduras and hypocrisy.

USA needs OAS more than Honduras does

Honduras president “Pepe” Lobo has gone to great extremes to placate OAS so the country can be allowed back in. In the process he seems to have lost almost all support at home.

Already before he was inaugurated he went overseas and signed a paper that said that the deposing of Manuel Zelaya, in an arrest ordered by the Supreme Court for violating the Constitution, was a coup d’état. This was his first major mistake.

For 7 months interim president Micheletti had held the moral high ground by insisting that Zelaya had committed an autogolpe (a self-coup) and that his deposing was constitutional. He had done so under international isolation and sanctions. He had taken over a country without a budget, with ransacked coffers, and all credit in the banks that Honduras was and is a member of was frozen. Yet, in spite of governing over a bankrupt country he held the hill, the moral high ground, to the very end.

The end came not the day that Lobo was inaugurated, but a couple of weeks before when he called the event on June 28th a coup. At that time Micheletti graciously stepped back, refrained from criticizing Lobo, and instead ceded to the president-elect. From the people, on the other hand, a roar of fury went up. Especially, of course, from those who had voted for him.

The others, led by Zelaya, just said “so he is a golpista, now he has admitted what we knew all the time.”

The strategic blunder of giving up the high ground and getting nothing in return was just mind-boggling.

The next precipitous fall in grace came about 10 minutes after he had sworn his oath of office. When giving his inauguration speech he thanked Honduras enemies, those who had harmed the country, but in spite of calls from the audience for him to thank Micheletti – who had made his election possible – he did not do so. At that point half the audience rose up from their seats and left the stadium in protest, according to a blog by an employee of the US embassy. This was hidden from the TV audience, since the cameras stopped panning over the galleries.

I would venture to say that Lobo probably set a new world record in losing support quickly after an election.

Today one would be hard pressed to find someone who defends his policies in Honduras. The redshirts see him as a golpista, and the whiteshirts see him as either a fool or a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

In fact, that is a position he shares with the US ambassador, Hugo Llorens, who is believed by some to be the one who dictates to Lobo what to do and not to do.

Lobo has bent over backwards to be allowed back in to OAS. He seems willing to go as far as to talk about holding a constituyente, even though that is completely anti-constitutional in Honduras, and he risks running afoul of article 239 in the Constitution – the one that says that an elected official who even suggests reforming certain paragraphs in the Constitution immediately loses his office.

But why? Why does he spend so much time and energy to please people like Hugo Chávez, Zelaya, and Insulza, even though it is obvious to any child that there is nothing, NOTHING, that Lobo can say or do that will please them.

Why doesn’t Lobo instead spend all his energy on transforming Honduras into a modern capitalist entrepreneurial country, ready to compete with the world on the global marketplace – but with a socially responsible face?

Maybe the answer is that USA is controlling Lobo, and USA needs the OAS. There are many regional organizations in Latin America that Honduras is a member of, and that can replace OAS, but OAS is the only one that the US is a member of. It is the strategy of Chávez to isolate the US from Latin America by making OAS obsolete.

If Honduras would turn its back to OAS it would contribute to making OAS obsolete, and thus isolate USA. That’s why Obama is so desperate for Honduras to return to OAS.

But is it worth the price?

I’d say no. Honduras and USA would be better off creating a new partnership, with Canada and other countries that truly are for democracy – unlike, as we have seen, OAS under Insulza.

Time for a new course. Stand proud, Honduras, and stop trying to placate your enemies, Obama!

OAS continues to disgrace itself

The Organization for American States was created to defend democracy in the Western Hemisphere, but last year it brazenly supported Manuel Zelaya’s coup d’état attempt in Honduras. When the coup was stopped on June 28 by the military, OAS supported the coupster Zelaya against all the democratic institutions of Honduras.

This pattern continues to this day. A few days ago the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) released a report on Honduras. Felipe González stated – without blushing – that he had not even met with highest official responsible for Human Rights in Honduras, ombudsman Ramon Custodio, the sole reason being that Custodio had not rejected the democratic institutions of Honduras. Say again? On the face of it, González statements are so absurd one would be excused for believing that he was talking from inside a lunatic asylum. But apparently he is not. Or is he?

González said that he did not “believe” that president Lobo was trying to investigate the murders, e.g. of 7 journalists since March 1st. How about if he would rely less on faith and try to use facts instead for a change? It is a fact that Lobo has asked for investigation help from a number of countries, and at least the U.S. has agreed to provide such support. The problem is lack of resources, human and others, not lack of willpower or determination. With the highest murder rate in the world, small wonder that they are over-stretched.

An editorial in Honduras Weekly is dead on in the analysis on what is really going on in the country, and how the so-called international community is influencing events. While many in international media uncritically repeat propaganda lies that there is some kind of conspiracy in Honduras, with right-wing death squads, Antonio di Iorio correctly reports that the real problem is lack of human capital. Or as he calls it, more bluntly: Incompetence. I don’t want to insult anyone, but honestly, the level of incompetence in Honduras, at the highest levels of government, is mind-boggling. That is where the real problem is.

As de Iorio so correctly concludes, the international media campaign is doing great harm to Honduras, by adding stones to burden. What they need is help, assistance, to fight the most murderous, cynical, immoral organized crime syndicate found anywhere on this planet. But what does the media do? Play right into the hands of those cocaine dealers.

Thus, one might be excused for concluding that perhaps there is one group that is even more incompetent than the Honduran leadership, and that is the (mainly leftist) international media. As my countryman Axel Oxenstierna wrote in 1648, “If you only knew, my son, with how little wisdom the world is run.”

HRF blasts OAS over Honduran crisis

The Human Rights Foundation (HRF) in a 300-page legal report published March 9th blasts the Organization for American States (OAS) for having lit the fuse that led to the deposing of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras on June 28th last year.

This statement is in perfect agreement with the position taken by the democratic institutions and the civil society of Honduras: If it hadn’t been for the OAS legitimizing Zelaya’s coup d’état with their unprecedented ‘Mission of Accompaniment’ to Honduras, the court and congress could have handled the matter with calm and let things play themselves out.

However, the act by OAS secretary general Insulza to send this mission to legitimize an unconstitutional referendum, already forbidden as illegal by the highest judicial authority in Honduras, was nothing short of a foreign illegal and hostile interference in a sovereign state. It was, in my opinion, an act of Cold War by Insulza against one of the member states of OAS.

HRF rightly calls for the resignation of Insulza. I would also like to see him brought to the International Criminal Court, and face justice, because his illegal actions has caused the death of a number of people in Honduras.

As regards HRF calling it a coup, that is subject to debate. They seem to fail to look at the overall picture, the purpose of the democratic constitution. It is as if in Sweden a court would rule on the letter of the law without looking at the preparatory works (förarbetena). I guess one could say that they are reading the law-book as the devil reads the Bible. However, that does not detract from the main conclusion: HRF has clearly given Honduras a big victory in its fight for international recognition of its democracy and rule of law.

Meanwhile, others continue with the same old, same old rhetoric on the alleged “coup” in Honduras, although as we know (if you have read my blog) that it really was an anti-coup.

The “Moment of Truth” for Pepe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Honduras Accuses OAS for Coup d’État

Honduras president Micheletti today accused Insulza, president of the Organization for American States (OAS), for being an accomplice in Zelaya’s failed coup d’état in Honduras June 28 last year.

The interview is published in the Tegucigalpa newspaper El Heraldo. When Zelaya, then president of Honduras, was preparing to hold a referendum that had been declared illegal by the Supreme Court, Insulza nonetheless sent official election observers, in open spite of the democratic institutions of Honduras. As then president of the Congress, Micheletti tried to talk some sense into Insulza, questioning how OAS (known as OEA in Spanish) could support an unconstitutional act by the president of Honduras, but the Chilean was unreasonable.

“I hold [Insulza] responsible for what happened in the country,” said Micheletti.

On the follow-up question “Was Insulza an accomplice to Zelaya?”, he replied, “He was an accomplice, he became an accomplice, and he remains an accomplice.” On an earlier question he had responded that “[Zelaya] was trying to do a coup d’état” (estaba tratando de dar un golpe de Estado).

The irony is that the purpose of OAS is to defend democracy, and here they were supporting a coup d’état.

Take a deep breath and think about it.

The interviewer continued, “How would the country be today if the intervention on June 28 had not taken place?”

“We would have had a dictator, a bunch of people taking away people’s rights and properties,” replied Micheletti. From a European perspective it might seem that this statement would need support, but from a Latin American perspective, all the support required can be found in the actual developments of the other countries where the same chain of events has taken place: Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador. Just the other day there was news from Chávez that he is expropriating a large chain of supermarkets because he doesn’t like their prices. All the tracks go in one direction.

“Are you convinced of this, Mr President?” continued the reporter.

“-Without a moment of doubt I respond: I am totally convinced, totally convinced.”

He recounts earlier in the interview how on 5 different occasions a number of people, including U.S. ambassador Llorens, tried to convince Zelaya not to go ahead with the illegal referendum, but to no avail. Micheletti interprets this to mean that Zelaya had made a promise, a commitment [to Chávez], that he couldn’t break no matter how illegal it was.

In that connection Llorens said that the U.S. would not recognize Honduras if they deposed Zelaya. This swayed some members of congress, whom Micheletti refers to as “cowards” rather than by name.

However, Zelaya’s acts grew increasingly criminal in the following days, and the decisions were taken at haste. What happened was not planned, it was an emergency decision to save democracy, he recounts.

After taking office Micheletti started calling people to set up a government. Although he warned them that their government would not be recognized by the world, not a single person turned down his request. As he puts it, he found himself surrounded by people who were prepared for a fight against wind and tide, “contra viento y marea”.

PS. Is it too far-fetched to suspect that Obama has withdrawn U.S. visas from leading personalities in Honduras just to prevent them from coming here and giving interviews, thus revealing what actually happened?

OAS splittrat om hållning till Honduras

Efter ett tio timmar långt möte på måndagen lyckades delegaterna i Organisationen för Amerikanska Stater inte att enas om ett gemensamt uttalande. Oenigheten gällde dels frågan om att erkänna vinnaren i det sedan länge planerade ordinarie valet den 29 november, dels om fördömanden av interimsregeringen under Micheletti, rapporterar La Prensa.

Under mötet sa USAs representant, suppleanten Lewis Amselem, att Zelayas beslut att återvända var “oansvarigt och idiotiskt”, vilket genererade stark kontrovers bland deltagarna.

Honduras kongress bad presidenten avskaffa det ungantagstillstånd som infördes i helgen efter att Zelaya uppmanat till allmänt uppror. Det kommer dock att vara i kraft en vecka för att bedöma effekten.

Media: DN, SvD

Honduras sätter hårt mot hårt diplomatiskt

Honduras lämnade 10 dagar för Brasilien att definiera vilken status Manuel Zelaya har, det vill säga om han kommer att ges politisk asyl av Brasilien eller ej. Brasilien har svarat att de accepterar inga ultimatum från en “kuppregim”.

Honduras meddelar nu att den diplomatiska statusen för Brasiliens ambassad kommer att upphöra om 10 dagar, om inte Zelayas status har definierats dessförinnan. Dock, av artighet kommer man inte att invadera lokalerna, tillägger utrikesminister Carlos López Conteras.

Man har också begärt att Spanien, Mexiko, Argentina och Venezuela avlägsnar sina länders flaggor, plakat och dylikt från ambassaderna. De länder som unilateralt har brutit de diplomatiska förbindelserna med Honduras tillåts inte att sända nya ambassadörer utan att börja från början igen med ackreditering. De diplomater som fortfarande finns i Honduras måste lämna in sina papper på nytt. Se dokument nedan.

Påbudet från utrikesministeriet.
Påbudet från utrikesministeriet.

Nittio dagar efter maktskiftet och ett diplomatiskt vakuum går Honduras till diplomatisk offensiv och implementerar de diplomatiska protokollen till punkt och pricka.

Diplomater släpptes inte in

Idag kom en delegation från OAS, en förtrupp på fem diplomater, till Tegucigalpas flygplats. Fyra av dem, 2 spanjorer, en colombian och en från USA släpptes inte in i landet. Endast en chilensk diplomat stannade kvar.

Anledningen till att de fick resa ut igen, fyra av dem till Costa Rica, var att de kom på diplomatpass från länder som har brutit de diplomatiska förbindelserna med Honduras. I fredags hade Micheletti-regimen meddelat de länder som inte erkänner interimsregimen så att dessa skulle kunna påbörja proceduren för att åter sända diplomater till Honduras.

Det är naturligtvis helt korrekt agerat av Honduras, och nödvändigt, efter att Brasilien har börjat använda sin ambassad som bas för att starta ett uppror i landet. Hur man analyserar läget beror på hur man ser på maktskiftet.

  • Från Brasiliens synpunkt är deras agerande lagligt eftersom de betraktar maktskiftet som en statskupp.
  • Från Honduras synpunkt begår Zelaya högförräderi ytterligare en gång, och med stöd av Brasilien denna gång.

Ingen kan kritisera Honduras för att avvisa diplomater som inte erkänner regimen, eftersom dessa måste agera för att kullkasta regimen utifrån det synsätt deras arbetsgivare har.

För att de skall släppas in behövs som minimum ett dokument som ger fri lejd, ett salvoconducto, men även det innebär ett implicit erkännande av interimsregimen eftersom de måste begära det av denna. Efter att det begärt det dokumentet kan de inte längre agera som Brasilien gör.


Det rapporteras i Honduras om rykten att Zelaya tänker sätta upp en skuggregering med sina gamla ministrar och departementschefer. Under dagen idag väntades fd utrikesminister Patricia Rodas, fd “comisionado presidencial” Arístides Mejía, fd presidentminister Enrique Flores, fd GD för Enee (motsvarar ungefär Vattenfall) Rixi Moncada och fd finansminister Rebeca Santos.

Flera av dessa har häktningsorder utfärdade på grund av korruption. Om de kommer till landet arresteras de. Enligt ryktena skulle utländska bidrag som frysts kanaliseras till denna skuggregering, som finge drivas från Brasiliens ambassad. Analytiker i Honduras anser inte att detta skull ändra något, även om det lyckades. Rodas var heller inte på det plan ryktet pekat ut.