HRF blasts OAS over Honduran crisis

March 11th, 2010

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.

Human Rights-case against Honduras is good news

March 10th, 2010

The case that Zelaya and his colleagues brought against Honduras before the Interamerican Human Rights Court is good news for Honduras. They accuse the “state of Honduras” to have committed a “coup d’état” on June 28, 2009. There are several reasons why this is good news:

  1. Zelaya has no case. His claim is baseless. The only complaint is that there is no due process in Honduras, but this is contradicted by the fact that two of the plaintiffs are in a process in Honduras at this very moment, and due process is observed.
  2. What Honduras has wanted more than anything since the UN General Assembly condemned the deposing of Zelaya last year as a “coup”, is to have an international judicial institution examine the legalities of the case, since that would provide independent third-party confirmation that it was a legal and constitutional succession. By bringing this case Zelaya has therefore done what Honduras couldn’t.
  3. The country has previously been reported to the International Criminal Court, ICC, but nothing has happened in that case, and most likely nothing will. This case is therefore a better chance for Honduras to defend its reputation as a democracy that respects the rule of law.
  4. Politically, this means that Zelaya has stabbed his benefactor president Pepe Lobo in the back. By letting the ex president leave the country, Lobo took a risk. When Zelaya continues to argue against the recognition of Lobo, and denouncing the country before international courts, it only serves to strengthen Lobo’s credibility within Honduras and make it easier for him to govern – while Zelaya becomes ever more irrelevant.

Next Tuesday the reply from Honduras to the commission investigating the case will be ready. The deadline for the reply is March 26.

    Zelaya blir rättshaverist

    March 10th, 2010

    Uppdatering 2010-03-10: Honduras institutioner har samlat en expertpanel av jurister, vilka igår höll ett möte för att diskutera ärendet. Saken har inte gått till den interamerikanska domstolen för mänskliga rättigheter än, utan är föremål för preliminär utredning av den till domstolen kopplade kommissionen, vilken har ställt ett antal frågor till Honduras högsta domstol och kongress. Fristen för att besvara dessa går ut den 26 mars.

    Enligt ordföranden för den mänskliga rättighetskommitté som handlägger ärendet i Honduras, Ricardo Rodríguez (se La Prensa och El Heraldo), har inte Zelaya och hans kollegor något som helst juridiskt argument, utan besväret gäller enbart att de inte har getts en chans att försvara sig i domstol. Detta motsägs emellertid av fakta, då två av dem (Rixi Moncada och Arístides Mejía) redan har inställt sig till domstol och har fått samma behandling som de i januari åtalade militärerna som sände Zelaya ut ur landet: De har försatts på fri fot i väntan på rättegång.

    Ursprunglig text 2010-03-08: Honduras avsatte president vänder sig nu till den Interamerikanska Kommissionen för Mänskliga Rättigheter, tillsammans med några av hans fd medarbetare, och anklagar Honduras högsta domstol för att ha begått en “statskupp” då den utfärdade en arresteringsorder för honom. Tydligen anser denne herre att en president i Honduras har rätt att fullständigt skita i vad övriga statsmakter beslutar, och om de insisterar på att han skall följa HDs explicita order, ja då är det en “statskupp”.

    Det är tragiskt att se hur en person kan vara så fullständigt verklighetsfrämmande, och tro sig själv om att ha rätt oavsett hur solida de juridiska argumenten är mot honom. Snacka om rättshaverist.

    Faktist finns det lite komik i anmälan också, genom att de anklagar “staten Honduras” för att ha “genomfört statskuppen den 28 juni” (!). Tydligen tänker Zelaya att det är han som är den rättmätige Ledaren för landet, och om de övriga statsmakterna, alltså “staten”, stoppar honom från att göra vad fanken han vill, ja då är det en “statskupp”. ROFL typ.

    PS. DN och andra MSM media som har tagit parti för Zelaya fortsätter att tiga som muren nu då de insett att de inte kan vinna debatten med relevanta argument.

    Zelaya to become political leader of PetroCaribe

    March 7th, 2010

    Venezuela’s president and former military coupster Hugo Chavez has offered Honduras’ deposed president Manuel Zelaya the post as head of a newly formed political council in the PetroCaribe organization. PetroCaribe was formed to sell oil from Venezuela to poor countries in the Caribbean and Central America under very favourable credit terms.

    A number of news stories talk about Zelaya becoming the head of PetroCaribe, but I have only found one in English, a Russian site, that is stating that he is to head a newly formed political council. Given how close Venezuela and Russia are, especially in PR (i.e., “Propaganda Related”; cf. e.g. how Pravda and Chavez both claimed that the U.S. had caused the earthquake on Haiti; weapons deals; presidential visits; etc), I’d keep an open mind to the possibility that it is the Russian source that is the correct one. When searching in Spanish this was seemingly confirmed by this Cuban site.

    Zelaya’s role will be to “promote democracy.” We all know how well that went in his native Honduras, where he was found by the Supreme Court to be acting to overthrow the democratic constitution in place since 1981, and deposed by Congress after the court had ordered his arrest. He overstepped an article (239) that leads to immediately ceasing to be president, and he did so after the court had issued an injunction for him not to do so. Those who claim that his removal was a coup because he has the right to due process are thus misinformed; due process was followed, why it was no coup.

    When PetroCaribe was formed, the critics - or conspiracy theorists if you prefer - said that it would become an instrument for putting political pressure on the members who were indebted to Chavez. The idea is not new, and now it seems that they are openly laying their cards on the table by creating this political council, intended to get involved in what is happening in the member states politically.

    It has been expoused how the west uses that strategy with the world bank system (e.g., in “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man“): Put a country in debt, and then demand that they follow your will, or else. Those leaders who are so obstinate that they don’t give in not matter what arm-twisting is employed, are eliminated. The basic idea is to lend money to Third World countries to put them on the hook, making sure they cannot pay it back, ever. Those negotiating the loans have a bonus pay, so they get more bonus the more they can inflate the loan. This is not supposed to be public information, so the employee who told me made me promise not to reveal his name. However, I can deduce that it is true from other evidence. I once was asked to put a price tag on a project in Honduras, so I asked a Swedish colleague with many years expertise in exactly that field. However, the bank was very unhappy, and wanted me to inflate the price by a factor ten or so. In other words, the strategy is as follows:

    Finance a project with a loan, give favorable interest (one to a few percent), but inflate the price so much that the project will never be profitable. It is important that the profit is taken out of the Third World country by giving the job to a First World company. This way the country stays poor and indebted for ever, while the cost for the rich county is not all that high since the money just goes around and quickly comes back into the national economy.

    What Chavez – perhaps in cohorts not only with Cuba but also with Russia – is doing is not to duplicate this strategy, but to create another version of it. Chavez does not have coffers full of money, but he has oil. Instead of providing money he provides oil.

    It does seem, though, that his plan is not all that well thought out. He is in fact lending money, since he is not getting paid until later. And unlike the world bank projects, the money does not immediately come back as income for Venezuelan consulting and construction companies. Chavez is actually providing something of value. He is, however, taking this from his citizens, the people of Venezuela. His country is going downhill rapidly, with hyperinflation, water shortages, electricity shortages, and security problems.

    In short, the PetroCaribe plan has turned out not to be sustainable. Perhaps that is why Chavez has decided to openly try to cash in on it now, before the economy completlygoes belly up.

    His political plans have already stalled; it started with Honduras stopping Zelaya’s coup attempt, and continued with a right-wing president being elected in Chile. Also Argentina and Brazil may loose their left-wing regimes soon according to opinion polls. The wind in Latin America seems to have shifted against him. When his economical power base now also is failing, Chavez has little choice but to act as swiftly as possible, before his chances are gone for good.

    Zelaya has already proven that his attitude is “full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes” – even when there is nothing but torpedoes ahead. The question is how far can a conflict go? If it was just Venezuela and ALBA, there would be no worry. Although Venezuela has some of the best Russian-made fighter planes, they have no pilots trained on them, and not even manuals in Spanish. How many Venezuelan pilots read Russian?

    However, Russia has decided to send its fleet back to the Caribbean. And Cuba has Spanish-speaking pilots who have studied Russian. Plus, what stops Putin from having Russian pilots flying the planes? USA allegedely had American pilots fly planes painted in Israeli colors during the 1967 war (although nobody has claimed they flew combat missions). By placing top-modern Russian war equipment in Venezuela, Russia has the equipment on stage so to say, in case a conflict would get ignited. Hopefully this is defensive in nature, and not offensive, even though Chavez did threaten war against Honduras, and keeps doing so against Colombia.

    This may just be a sign that a new Cold War might be sailing up off Florida. What is a country like Honduras to do in this scenario?

    My best advice is to not trust either side, but to seek out a neutral road of self-reliance. Nobody is thinking about Honduras’ well-being except Hondurans. Neither Obama nor Chavez has anything good to offer Honduras (beyond trade, of course). It is time that the country stopped pandering for recognition, stuck to its laws, and started working diligently on its own long-term economical plan.

    Footnote: There are also ALBA loans for buying oil from Chavez. Zelaya used them, and so does president and former dictator Ortega of Nicaragua. The purchasing president only pays a fraction of the price to Venezuela, but sells it at full price. The remainder is a long-term loan, like 25 years. It sounds very similar to the PetroCaribe loans, and I am not sure what difference – if any – there is. Zelaya tried to convince the private sector in Honduras to get on board with this, arguing that 25 years is an eternity, so they didn’t have to worry about ever paying it back. They refused, though, wisely. The cash that this deal generates for the president is used as an illegal source of political cash, and is employed for corrupting the political process. While Honduras stood up to this corruption attempt, Nicaragua is now the next target, and only time will tell if it will succeed or not.

    USA-imperialismen i Latinamerika fortsätter

    March 5th, 2010

    Härom dagen kallade USAs ambassadör i Honduras, Hugo Llorens, till sig ledarna för det Liberala Partiet. Omedelbart därefter sa Roberto Micheletti upp sig som partiledare [Rättelse: Ledningen röstade att avsätta Micheletti med endast 3 röster mot, och en nerlagd, enligt senare uppgifter]. Enligt min källa är alla utom 3 eller 4 i ledningen nu inne på att Manuel Zelaya skall komma tillbaka till Honduras, få alla anklagelser om korruption avskrivna, och återuppta sitt politiska engagemang som partiledare trots att han försökt begå en statskupp. Men å andra sidan, Hugo Chavez i Venezuela och Adolf Hitler i Tyskland begick också statskuppförsök, satt i fängelse för dem, men återvände sedan till att väljas till ledare för sina respektive länder (där de helt förutsägbart sedan förstörde demokratin). Så det finns ju prejudikat.

    Men varför i böveln reser inte vänstern sig som en man och protesterar mot denna USA-imperialism, att blanda sig i hur ett politiskt parti i ett annat land väljer sina ledare? Har vänstern gått och blivit cynisk nu när USA går deras ärende? Har de ingen etisk och moralisk kompass? Är de lika korrupta som fascisterna?

    Reportrar Utan Gränser förolämpar mördad journalist i Honduras

    March 3rd, 2010

    Ursprunglig text 2010-03-01: Medan jag skrev den förra bloggposten genomförde de som kallar sig motståndsrörelsen ett attentat mot en journalist som varit kritisk mot dem, Karol Cabrera. Hon är sårad, men hennes kollega som skjutsade henne dog. Karols 16-åriga dotter mördades den 15 december förra året, nerskjuten av två personer på motorcykel. President Micheletti kallade då till en presskonferens i vilken han anklagade de som kallar sig motståndsrörelsen för mordet, och uppmanade de media som stödjer dem till att upphöra med sin hatkampanj.

    Det går inte att två sina händer om man sprider hat. De som förmedlar hat via radio och TV har också blod på sina händer, även om de aldrig lämnar studion. Pennan är mäktigare än svärdet, men mikrofonen är ännu mäktigare.

    Uppdatering 2010-03-03: Karol Cabrera sände live på radion då hon sköts. Sändningen kan höras här, klicka bara på bilden på bilen till höger (”Momento en que atentant contra Karol Cabrera”). La Prensa skriver att den ihjälskjutne var Joseph Ochoa, journalist på den privata kanalen “51″, men att attentatet säkert var riktat mot Cabrera, reporter på den statliga TV-kanalen Canal 8 och på den privata radiokanalen RCV. Mordet ägde rum på samma plats där Cabreras 16-åriga gravida dotter mördades den 15 december då hon färdades i en bil tillhörande Karol, och tillvägagångssättet var detsamma. De som kallar sig motståndsrörelsen har hotat henne därför att hon öppet stödjer högsta domstolens och kongressens avsättande av president Zelaya den 28 juni förra året.

    Det kan därför inte råda något rimligt tvivel om att det var “de som kallar sig” som utförde bägge dessa mord, vilket även USAs ambassadör till Honduras Hugo Llorens säger, men trots det säger Reportrar Utan Gränser att man inte bör koppla detta mord till (den avstyrda) statskuppen förra året. Personligen tycker jag att Reportrar Utan Gränser (RSF) prostituerar sig när de så öppet tar politisk ställning för “de som kallar sig”. Fy skäms!

    Som om inte detta vore nog så slår RSF salt i såren då de försöker vrida hela historien till att det är regeringen som förtrycker regeringskritiska journalister, och lite längre ner skriver om ett par reportrar på Radio Globo som valt att lämna landet. Det djupt förolämpande i detta är att det är just denna radiokanal som bedrivit den hatkampanj som med intill visshet gränsande sannolikhet lett till detta mord på en regeringsvänlig journalist. RSF har lyckats att förolämpa den mördade genom att i hans egen dödsruna vända sin sympati till dem med blod på sina händer!

    Förresten rapporteras att Karol Cabrera är allvarligt skadad men att läget är stabilt.

    Addendum: Human Rights Watch skrev idag (3 mars) till Honduras riksåklagare och uppmanade honom att undersöka brott med misstänkta politiska förtecken mot regeringsfientliga personer, inklusive de två från Radio Globo, men nämner ingenting om ovanstående mord eller andra politiska brott mot de som stödjer regeringen. Tyvärr gör det att organisationen inte längre framstår som ojävig, utan att de bara bryr sig om mänskliga rättigheter för de personer som delar deras politiska uppfattning. Därmed blir de helt irrelevanta.

    Rapport varnar för möjlig gerilla i Honduras

    March 1st, 2010

    En underrättelserapport som lästs av La Prensa i San Pedro Sula varnar för att bondeorganisationer i Aguandalen i nordöstra Honduras har ingått en strategisk allians med vänsterorganisationer, den kommunistiska knarkgerillan FARC i Colombia, och med drogkarteller som smugglar kokain genom Honduras. De lär redan vara beväpnade med grovkalibriga vapen, och instruktörer från FARC skall vara på väg för att lära dem använda granater och andra vapen. De har ockuperat odlingar av afrikansk oljepalm (källan till oljan bakom många vardagsprodukter, tänk Palmolive). Odlingarna tillhörde ett kooperativ från 1981 till 1993, då tillgångarna såldes under omständigheter som tydligen är ifrågasatta.

    Dessa lantarbetare i Aguan har sedan valet i slutet av november kommit i fokus för de politiska konflikterna i Honduras. Det är kanske kärnan av det som kallats “motståndsrörelsen” mot “statskuppen” av dem själva, men som andra kallar “insistencian” eftersom de insisterar på att kullkasta statsskicket, med vilka som helst till buds stående medel. Den nationella ledaren för denna gruppering är Rafael Alegria, och även om de själva påstår sig vara fredliga, så har media som är välvilligt inställda till dem rapporterat att de beslutat ta till “militanta” metoder för att få till stånd en “konstituerande grundlagsförsamling”, vilket naturligtvis förutsätter att det existerande statsskicket först kullkastas – något som bara kan ske genom revolution eller statskupp (som den Zelaya försökte genomföra förra året men vilken stoppades av HD och kongressen den 28 juni).

    De allianser med FARC för vapen och träning, och drogkarteller för finansiering, som rapporten nämner, förefaller stämma in i den strategin. Vad drogkartellerna får ut av det hela är naturligtvis en fristad i Centralamerika om projektet lyckas. Att de mexikanska kartellerna nu flyttar sin bas från Mexiko till Centralamerika beror på de hårdare polisiära insatserna i deras hemland, enligt en rapport från USAs UD, refererad av El Heraldo.

    Något gerillakrig har inte startat i Honduras, utan rapporten varnar för möjliga hot så att landets säkerhetstjänst kan ta itu med dem innan situationen spårar ur. Förhoppningsvis kommer situationen att kunna hanteras på fredlig väg i domstolar, och genom presidentens personliga insats i att medla i konflikten mellan bönderna och den registrerade ägaren av marken.

    PS. Medan jag skrev detta genomfördes ett journalistmord, se nästa post.

    Uppdatering 2010-03-03: Beträffande situationen i nedre Aguan så hävdar släktingar till de 6 som skjutits hittills (5 vakter och ett barn) att de som mördade dem inte kan vara bönder, för bönder använder inte den typen av vapen eller taktik, utan de är terrorister och måste behandlas som sådana av myndigheterna, skriver La Prensa. Tidningens journalister kunde inte ta sig hem till dessa släktingar för de blev beskjutna, så mötet ägde rum på annan plats.

    Pepe Lobo, and dirty war in Honduras

    March 1st, 2010

    Since Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo Sosa took office as President of Honduras on January 27, 2010, there have been reports on the web of an apparent increase of murders targeting those who want to overthrow the form of government and institute a new constituting assembly.

    The self-denominated “Popular Resistance Movement” consists of members of a range of organizations, including several trade unions, groups of landless farmers (or farmers whose right to the land they cultivate is disputed), and indigenous organizations. They have reportedly decided to continue insisting on a “constituting assembly,” even though said institution has already been declared unconstitutional by the highest court of the country. Moreover, the report said that they had decided to use “militant” methods in the struggle.

    It might seem obvious to an outside observer that the movement thus has placed itself squarely outside the law, and that the appropriate response from the government would be to use the judicial system and the police force to prevent them from succeeding with any criminal objective.

    The reports of a new dirty war in Honduras, targeting these individuals and their family with beatings, rape, and murder, thus seems illogical – provided that the judicial system in Honduras works. The problem is that it doesn’t work very well, in the opinion of many. Crimes can often be committed with impunity, since only a fraction of the 14 murders per day in average in the country are solved. In fact, lynchings are not uncommon as people get frustrated over the lack of justice, and a while ago there was a shootout in a neighbourhood of the capital when thieves tried to rob a water truck (all the thieves were shot and most died).

    Honduras had a dirty war, with over one hundred trade union activists murdered, just a couple of decades ago. Unless clear signals are sent now, from the president and others who can sway the opinion, a new dirty war risks starting – or continue, if it already has.

    This is the time for Pepe Lobo to go out in a televised address to the nation and say, in no uncertain terms, that his government has a zero tolerance for extra-judicial punishment. He needs to clearly denounce all aspects of the dirty war, and in so strong words that there can be no doubt about his sincerity.

    Pepe needs to do this in order for all those who might be tempted to “help” him, to understand that their “help” is entirely unwelcome and counter-productive. It is not enough for him not to approve it. He has to actively disapprove of it, or else it will start – that is my prediction now. I base that prediction on the attitude of people I have talked with. Just like Dick Cheney and many others in the U.S. have an attitude that some forms of torture is acceptable (by not calling it torture), there are those in Honduras who tacitly accept the need to “cleanse” the country of certain “elements,” so to say. In each case the fight against (real or imagined) terrorism might be used as justification for violating human rights (even though this is entirely unsupported by law).

    Incidentally, the fact that those in the U.S. who approved, ordered, and carried out torture in violation of international law, have not been prosecuted after all these years, can be taken as a sign by people in Honduras that it is OK to violate human rights when dealing with terrorists. In fact, USA – including President Obama – has a major responsibility for possibly opening the floodgates for a new wave of human rights abuses in the world. A difference is, though, that Honduras is subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and they are watching what the country is doing in terms of human rights (unlike the case with USA). However, by the time they would intervene it would already be too late; the crimes would already have been committed, the damage already done.

    So the question is, will Pepe Lobo denounce the dirty war as a tactic? Will he stake out a third path, a path of peaceful reconciliation, and forcefully denounce violence and illegal acts on both sides in the social conflict?

    If he does not, Honduras will remain at status quo for several decades more. This means continued desperate poverty, so desperate that millions prefer to live illegally in the U.S., or getting involved with crime. No country in North America can afford to let this happen. Pepe must instill confidence in law and order, for all law abiding citizens, and he must forcefully insist in respect for the fundamental human rights of life and liberty.

    Footnote: While writing this, the word on the web is that Pepe Lobo is getting too close to Zelaya, that he may be dropping the charges and allowing him back, and even to serve in the Central American parliament Parlacen. Personally I believe that this is just part of a psychological war, part of the effort to create uncertainty. As I have written previously, the party that has most to gain from this is the drug cartels. They also have most to gain from a new dirty war, in my analysis, but it does not detract from the need for Pepe Lobo to clearly come out against it. On the contrary, it makes it even more important for him to try to unite the people against the threat of organized, international crime.

    Analysis: Drug cartels behind political murders in Honduras

    February 27th, 2010

    The apparent targeting of supporters of the “Popular Resistance Front” in Honduras continues after the new president was sworn in. It comes as no surprise to me, since I have always been convinced that the government of Honduras has nothing whatsoever to do with those criminal and reprehensible acts. First, because they have nothing to win from it, and second, because staffers in the Micheletti administration were as appalled by it as I was.

    However, there are a few people who are under the false assumption that the method, used during the military junta in the 70’s, actually worked and actually was good for the country. They also believe that they would be doing the country a favor if they implemented the methods, and furthermore, they believe that the government tacitly appreciates if they do it in spite of condemning it officially.

    They are sadly mistaken. It is seriously hurting the country, and it is not in any way sanctioned from the top.

    However, I doubt that those who are under this erroneous impression really are the culprits. In my opinion, they are just sofa analysts who lack the resources and determination to do anything more than opine.

    To find the real culprits, I would first look at the personal economic gain, the motive. There is one sector and one sector only that stands to gain significantly from these murders: The drug cartels. Furthermore, apart from motive they have the resources, and murder is an everyday part of business for them.

    This is how it works in my opinion: By murdering members of the “resistencia” for no apparent reason, or even leaving a greeting from “Pepe”, the new president, they divide the country against itself. They undermine the faith in the government, and they tie up police resources.

    They also tie up police and military resources when the “resistencia” is taking to the streets, like the other day. The large amounts of dollars paid to the demonstrators throughout the crisis (tens of thousands per day) clearly shows that someone has a large economical stake in it. Consider that Honduras has a large number of bush airfields, typically with no guards, and that the country has turned into the favorite landing-place for drug planes from South America. The cocaine continues to Mexico over land or sea from Honduras. The country’s radars are inadequate, and luckily for the drug smugglers, the US decided to turn theirs off as a “punishment” for the “coup” when Zelaya’s auto-coup attempt was stopped on June 28, 2009.

    What would you do in that situation if you were a big-time cocaine smuggler? Wouldn’t you gladly pay Hondurans a few dollars each to take to the streets in the thousands, the more violent the better, so that all the police and military resources of the country would be overwhelmed? At the price of a few tens of thousands of dollars, the whole country would become a free-for-all drug-plane landing strip. In that situation perhaps a dozen of flights or more per day could come in, with tens of tons of cocaine, representing a value of perhaps a hundred million dollars. To spend some million dollars on fomenting unrest and destroying society seems like a good investment, if drug trafficking is analyzed from an economical perspective.

    Indeed, that is the only reasonable way to analyze it. It is all a matter of business decisions. Supporting the people in Honduras and elsewhere who have legitimate grievances that are not being addressed by their corrupt governments, is easy. All you need to do is to throw some money at them and encourage them to pursue certain political goals, that are chosen so as to create fracture, not consensus and progress.

    The “Popular Resistance Front” in Honduras represents some groups that have legitimate grievances, but several of the policies and methods they have chosen benefit nobody except the drug cartels.

    It is a challenge for politicians in Honduras to explain to the electorate that the country is under mortal attack; that enemies of the state are pushing agendas such as militant fight and the goal of a Constituting Assembly (which is clearly a treasonous objective); and that what all Hondurans need to do is to engage each other in a serious and well-intended debate with the objective of improving the country in a peaceful way.

    They have to explain clearly to people that the murders are carried out by the drug cartels, precisely in order to undermine people’s confidence in the government. They must engage people in a joint fight and a united front against the drug smugglers. They must make people realize that any entanglement with illegal drugs, no matter how small, is like selling ones soul to the devil. Every person must have a zero tolerance to drugs and drug smugglers.

    It also goes for Americans and all others who use drugs: They are the ones who drive the process that ultimately leads to these murders.

    Politicians must speak clearly about this. It is a war. The future of the nation of Honduras is at stake. The country must unite against the foreign enemy, and help countrymen in need. Pepe Lobo is trying to do this, I’m sure, although it is a difficult balancing act with an international community that does not understand the nature of the problem. He is also facing a strong propaganda machine that is trying to undermine people’s faith in his presidency. While Micheletti had a war room like in a presidential campaign, Lobo chose not to keep it, which I personally think was a mistake from his side. I fear he may have seriously underestimated the enemy, and the nature of the threat to the country. Or rather, I hope he did, so it wasn’t intentional…

    Honduras is just the tip of the iceberg. The drug trafficking is influencing politics in all of Latin America, and the entire leftist wave that has been sweeping over the continent for a decade is allied with the drug lords. The old armed rebels in Colombia, the FARC, have gone from a communist guerilla to a narco-guerilla with only minimal political justification. All the way up to the US of A we see that the far left is pro-drugs (unlike the far left in e.g. Sweden, who is as anti-drugs as any of the major parties). Any country that is caught in substance abuse cannot compete effectively, such as USA.

    Also in Asia and Afghanistan we see the link between populist movements and drug smuggling. It appears that they can pull in suckers to work in the dirty trade using cheap political rhetoric. Especially when it comes to murders, it may be good rhetoric to call it “war” instead, since killing is accepted as an integral part of war. Thus the nexus between populism and narcotics, in my humble opinion.

    Läs historien om Honduras från en som var med hela tiden

    February 25th, 2010

    En “gringa”, en amerikanska som bor i Honduras har bloggat om krisen i landet. Nu har hon lagt ut första delen av en serie om bakgrund, upptakt, aktion, och reaktion. Läs den själv (på engelska) på La Gringa’s Blogicito. Den är mycket tänkvärd för alla som vill förstå omvärlden, och inte bara okritiskt svälja den rappakalja som media förmedlar (oftast via många led och ytterst sällan från någon med egen erfarenhet).

    Does Honduras need a new cadaster and real estate law?

    February 24th, 2010

    One of the underlying conflicts in the recent political crisis was decree 18-2008 from the national Congress in Honduras, which contained the expropriation of some 40,000 hectares in the country. This caused land to be seen as worthless for banks, and thus credits to the important agricultural sector dried up.

    A specific situation developed in lower Aguán, with the occupation of land, and even murders. That conflict has now reached the president himself, who is trying to resolve it in a peaceful way that respects landownership, but also the need for the traditional farmers to have land to cultivate.

    The structural problem behind this seems to be the lack of a cadaster, and an appropriate law on landownership in Honduras. On August 8th I proposed on this blog that a land lease law would be beneficial – and definitely better than to expropriate land that is not being cultivated.

    Expropriation destroys the value of real estate, which is the fundamental source of security for loans. The result is high interest rates, low investments, low development, and perpetuated poverty in Honduras.

    In contrast, leasing land allows all land to be used in the most productive way regardless of who owns it, while at the same time providing a security for the loans. It increases the value of the land, and can be used as a lever to lift the country out of poverty, and even into the modern so-called developed world, if combined with other measures, such as fighting crime and improving education.

    It is generally recognized that having a cadaster is essential for a country to develop. It is the foundation of the economy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Sweden assisted some of the former soviet republics with developing a new cadaster (since their old ones had been destroyed). Understanding the importance of this, Russia on its own decided to also implement its version of the Swedish cadaster (which is the oldest one in the world, and has been named the best, followed by the German). Although I haven’t seen any study on this, from the observations I have there seems to be a clear correlation between GDP and the existence of a cadaster.

    It thus seems a no-brainer that the Honduran Congress should develop a new legislation that covers a modern cadaster, real estate ownership, and real estate lease.

    Misinformation on Honduras continues

    February 23rd, 2010

    In an article today from a Chinese news agency, it is stated that the amnesty that the new president of Honduras, Pepe Lobo, pushed through, was a part of the Tegucigalpa Accord. That is one hundred percent false. Amnesty was explicitly taken out of the accord during the Guaymuras dialogue.

    The Honduran prosecutor (ministerio publico) appealed the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss all charges against the joint chiefs of staff, for having violated the arrest order and exiled former president Zelaya rather than throwing him in jail. This was the news that the article reported, but it has been known since early January that the prosecutor intended to take this step.

    Honduran newspapers thus focus on another action by the prosecutor today, in the form of yet another charge against Zelaya and various collaborators for abuse of authority. It concerns how 30 million lempiras (about 1.5 million USD) were re-allocated illegally to be used for PR in connection with the referendum that the courts had issued an injunction against.

    Photomontage: Pepe and Mel in the Brazilian Embassy

    February 20th, 2010

    Posted 18:33, revised 20:22: A couple of photos reached me today from a supporter of the “resistencia”. The document in which they were pasted claims that Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo went to the Brazilian Embassy with the US ambassador Hugo Llorens so that Manuel “Mel” Zelaya could pass the presidential band to the newly elected president, and thus claim legitimacy and have more countries recognize Honduras.

    Pepe Lobe and Mel Zelaya in the Brazilian Embassy in Honduras.

    Photomontage: Pepe Lobe and Mel Zelaya in the Brazilian Embassy in Honduras.

    The question is why someone made this montage.

    Mel Zelaya symbolically passes on the presidency to Pepe Lobo.

    Photomontage: Mel Zelaya symbolically passes on the presidency to Pepe Lobo.

    The act, if it had taken place, would have meant different things to different people. For some it would have meant that Mel no longer could claim that he is the legitimate president of Honduras (or that Pepe not is the legitimate president now).

    For others, it would have meant that Pepe acknowledged that Mel was the legitimate president, and for still some, that Pepe was a traitor. In any case, the purpose seems to have been to discredit Pepe Lobo, and to inflate the image of Mel.

    Niger avslöjar Honduras-hyckleriet

    February 19th, 2010

    Härom veckan var det Nigeria, nu är det Niger. En militärkupp avsatte landets folkvalde president Mamadou Tandja. Denna hade ändrat grundlagen förra året så att han skulle kunna bli omvald, och hade även upplöst parlamentet. Till skillnad från Honduras, där OAS till och med tänkte delta i den grundlagsvidriga omröstningen som Zelaya planerat hålla den 28 juni 2009, så blev Niger diplomatiskt isolerat från omvärlden efter presidentens maktövergrepp.

    Endast pliktskyldiga fördömanden av militärkuppen har hörts, skriver World Politics Review. Detta står i skarp kontrast till Honduras, som omedelbart utsattes för fördömanden från hela värdssamfundet, trots att Honduras militär agerade på direkta order från landets högsta domstol. Förutom att HD är den högsta rättsvårdande instansen i landet så är det en demokratisk institution som har den legitima rätten att låta arrestera presidenten i Honduras.

    I Niger upplöstes alla grundlagens institutioner av militären, och en militärjunta tog över. I Honduras förblev alla demokratiska institutioner som tidigare, och samtliga befattningshavare utom presidenten, regeringen och vissa verkschefer kvarstod i sina jobb (minst en minister behölls dock, men han har nu anklagats för grov korruption, så det kanske var ett dåligt drag av Micheletti). Militären tog aldrig makten i Honduras, ändå fördömdes Honduras mycket hårdare än Niger. Hyckleri, någon?

    Varför fallen hanteras så annorlunda kan lätt förklaras genom medias roll. När Zelaya arresterades i Honduras så fanns det hundratals journalister, reportrar och fotografer i landet – med uppehälle betalt av Zelaya – redo att rapportera allt som hände. De var förberedda på att vinkla en insats av de rättsvårdande instanserna som en statskupp. Det handlade inte om en ojävig rapportering av nyheter, utan de flesta av dem var en del av en mycket medveten och väl planerad propagandaoperation, iscensatt från Caracas, Venezuela, säkert med hjälp från Havana, Kuba.

    Vad som hänt i Niger nu, och Nigeria härom veckan, är “normala statskupper” i avlägsna länder utan mediabevakning. Vad som hände i Honduras var en anti-kupp, vilken framgångsrikt framställdes som en statskupp av en omfattande propagandamaskin som var i maskopi med den egentlige kuppmakaren: Manuel Zelaya. Som så ofta när kartan inte stämmer med verkligheten valde majoriteten att tro på kartan.

    Varför ändrade de inte sig när sanningen kom ut några dagar senare? Detta handlar om psykologi vilket inte är mitt fält. Jag kan bara konstatera att många verkar ha låst sig vid en verklighetsbild, och att de bortförklarar allt som inte stämmer in på den. De juridiska dokumenten bortförklaras till exempel som falsifikat, fastän de är undertecknade av domare i högsta domstolen som intygar att de är äkta. Då går de ett steg till och bortförklarar domarna som “kuppmakare”, fastän de är korrekt tillsatta, och fastän HD är den yttersta instansen som tolkar lagen enligt grundlagen.

    Jag har framfört detta argument till flera i den så kallade “resistencian” i Honduras, och intressant nog, fastän de blir svarslösa och medger att jag har en poäng, så inser de inte att det kullkastar hela deras position. Kanske de tycker att den befintliga republiken måste kastas ut helt och hållet, och en ny skapas från noll.

    Även om jag håller med om att genomgripande sociala förändringar behövs, så kan jag aldrig acceptera att göra revolution mot ett folkstyre. Det råder ju trots allt redan demokrati, även om den har samma brister som i USA. Folket kan organisera sig och genomföra förändringar på fredlig väg – och laglig väg. När skall världssamfundet fördöma “resistencians” beslut att ta till “militanta” medel mot Honduras demokrati?

    Joseph Stack’s beef with the tax law of the USA

    February 18th, 2010

    The engineer who flew his plane into IRS, thus killing at least one person on the ground apart from himself, had a concrete complaint. I just heard Rachel Maddow say that she couldn’t find anything concrete in his posting. Well, I could. Check the conference committee report on IRS section 1706, the amendment of 1978.

    Basically, it is about if a worker should be counted as an employee or an independent contractor (in Swedish: anställd eller egen företagare). What that amendment did was to say that engineers and some other professions should never be considered independent contractors. That’s kind of harsh, but now to the part that is mind-boggling: Even if they work for another corporation they are to be considered an employee of the hiring corporation (provided that they control the corporation they work for). This was Joseph’s beef.

    Consider this example. Company A hires company B to do a job, and company B subcontracts company C to provide engineer D to carry out the services. Company C may have thousands of employees, but it is owned by engineer D, so he controls it. Therefore company B must pay taxes for D as if he was an employee.

    What happens is of course that the overhead of company C gets slapped with personal income tax and social security fees! Of the little that is left, company C must then pay its corporate taxes, its staff, their income taxes, their social security fees, and its capital gains taxes.

    The result I would expect from this tax provision is of course the death of the small engineering firm in the US. I came here in 2002, when this draconian law had been doing its work for almost a quarter of a century. I soon noticed that there was no point in looking for engineers here. Much better to turn to Sweden for such services. And now I think I may know why. This law may effectively have pulled the rug from under US entrepreneurship, but it has not affected the ability of foreign engineering suppliers to compete on the US market.

    This is an “aha-experience.” I did not know about this rule (as it doesn’t affect me), but it may potentially explain A LOT when it comes to why the US has lost its economical leadership in the world. Yes, “has” lost. The full effect of the downturn of the US industry has not yet been seen, as it will continue for years due to the lack of engineers and entrepreneurs in the technical fields, but the pole position is surely lost.

    Returning to the law, it violates basic common sense and decency. A corporation is a legal person and this personhood must be respected by the tax code. The amendment mentioned violates the personhood of company C. Thereby it also violates the rights of person D to freely engage in business. I would think there might be a good case to be made for this violating person D:s civil rights, and indeed human rights.

    Too bad Joseph Stack is dead, as I would have wanted to see this go through the legal system to the highest level in the US – and internationally if need be. This really sticks out as a nail in the eye of the “land of the free.”