Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Tensions Mount in Honduras as Crisis Talks Move to US
TEGUCIGALPA - Ousted Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya was set to meet with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, as the country's political crisis talks moved to Washington.
A supporter of ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya waves the national flag during a rally to protest for the death of Isis Oved Murillo (19) and against the military coup in Tegucigalpa. Supporters of Zelaya took to the streets after two died in clashes with the army, as the deposed leader headed to Washington to meet with Hillary Clinton. (AFP) The Clinton meeting would be the highest-level contact between Zelaya and US President Barack Obama's administration since the June 28 coup, when troops arrested the leftist leader in his pajamas and expelled him from the country.
The interim leaders who deposed Zelaya meanwhile sent a commission to Washington to try to convince politicians that there had been a "constitutional succession" not a "coup" in Honduras, they said in a statement.
In increasingly polarized Honduras, several thousand protesters took to the streets Monday, a day after two Zelaya supporters were killed during a mass demonstration at the airport, when the army prevented a plane carrying the deposed leader from landing.
"Assassins!" they shouted at a crowd of soldiers behind riot shields as they marched several hundred meters (yards) past the presidential palace.
A fake corpse covered in fake blood lay under a Honduran flag to represent the first deaths since the troubles began.
"We're going to continue with peaceful resistance despite the repression," union leader Juan Barahona told AFP.
The United States and the United Nations on Monday led condemnation of the first deaths since protests began a week ago in Honduras.
"We deplore the use of force against demonstrators in Tegucigalpa in recent days," said US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon said the Organization of American States should work to restore constitutional order, after the 34-member pan-American body suspended Honduras at an emergency session over the weekend.
Roberto Micheletti's interim government has said that the issue of Zelaya's return is not negotiable and insists that his ouster was legal.
Micheletti said in Honduras late Monday that he hoped Clinton would help "advance" dialogue to resolve the crisis.
"We support the attempt by Secretary Clinton to advance dialogue in this situation," Micheletti said on national television.
The Honduran crisis is the biggest challenge yet for Obama's Latin America policy, in a region where the United States holds great influence.
In Nicaragua, Zelaya said that he would be heading for Washington, where he planned to talk to Clinton about his eventual return to Honduras.
"I will return to Honduras, there's no doubt about that," Zelaya said.
"No one owes allegiance" to the new government of the "usurper" Micheletti, he added. The coup leader's actions over the last week were "void" because they were carried out in violation of the country's constitution.
Before leaving, Zelaya said he was naming a new Honduran ambassador to the United States, Enrique Reina, to replace Hugo Llorens, who had submitted to the interim government.
International pressure has mounted on the Central American nation on the heels of aid freezes, the recall of ambassadors and temporary trade embargoes.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Zelaya's key backer, said he has suspended crucial shipments of oil.
The Pentagon has suspended all military activities with Tegucigalpa until further notice.
The coup leaders say they are prepared for an economic blockade of at least six months, in order to hold out until scheduled elections in November, but analysts warn that they would struggle to resist economic sanctions.
It was unclear exactly how many people had been injured and detained in the past week's clashes, amid growing indignation from international rights groups.
Night curfews -- which suspend some freedoms guaranteed by the constitution -- and media blackouts have heightened tension in one of Latin America's poorest countries.
The army sent Zelaya away at the height of a dispute with the courts, politicians and the army over his plans to change the constitution that opponents said included an attempt to stand for a second term.
59 Comments so far
Show AllFrom all the reports I've seen about this, there is one detail that I think determines whether what Zelaya did was legal/constitutional or not in Honduras. That is, reportedly the Congress has the power to call a constitutional; consultation, not the President of Honduras. Anyone know for sure?
Zelaya wasn't calling for anything but a non-binding referendum, there's nothing illegal about that. The military just doesn't want it known that the masses want to allow the president to run for another term, because that will reduce the military's power as servants of the bourgeoisie.
Exactly!
Also, Honduras has a constitutional method for removal of the President: Impeachment.
This "Zelaya was breaking the law to hold on to power" meme needs to be stopped right now.
1. The public cosultation was NOT "illegal".
2. Even if it was, the proper solution would have been impeachment, not a coup d'eteat.
"2. Even if it was, the proper solution would have been impeachment, not a coup d'eteat."
That's my next point after I figure out if it was illegal or not.
Cool.
But my point is that the "illegality" point is:
1. Moot.
2. Being used to manipulate understanding and opinion outside of Honduras in order to justify what should be an obviously odious act -a coup d'etat.
Have you seen the "RealNews" video report that's also in today's CommonDreams?
The whole "Zelaya was breaking the law" meme is handled and destroyed quite nicely in that peace when a journalist on the ground in Tegucigalpa asks the Pretender President the obvious question "If Zelaya has broken the law, why is he being kept out of the reach of the law by removing him from Honduras and preventing his return." The Pretender's response about "avoiding violence" is transparently false, as it is HE and his co-conspirators who control the army and police, and THEY who have commited 100% of the violence in this situation.
When Tom DeLay and the Repubs decided Clinton had broken the law while in office, did they have the military snatch him out of bed and deport him then prevent him from returning to face justice?
So why would that be a justifiable action in Honduras?
Again, the "illegal referendum" argument is made moot by both its internal counterfactuality and the greater illegal actions of those presenting it.
I'll be sure to check it out when I'm done with work.
And you're right...the basic idea of '2 wrongs don't make a right'.
Exactly.
You might want to also check out -therealnews.com- in general.
They're pretty good.
I watched it for a couple days about a year ago, but didn't really get into it because I enjoyed Link TV instead. Now that I don't get Link TV on my TV anymore, I'll check it out again.
The days of governing by coups in Latin countries should be over. Reminder of similar coups against democratically elected presidents, e.g. Allende and Arbenz. Zelaya must be restored to the pesidency in Honduras.Democracy should prevail.
Let's be clear, zmann, that President Zalaya was calling for a consultation, allowed under Article 5 of the Law of Civic Participation, not a referendum. The political pressure on the the Congress to then initiate a referendum on a constitutional assembly would have been great, but that's politics, not subverting the constitution.
Additionally, the article gives currency to the notion that President Zalaya was after another term, which might challenge the constitution, but that was merely the canard put out as a talking point by the coup plotters and their friends in the U. S. Any constitutional assembly would convene long after Zelaya had finished his term and the article should have made that clear.
Thanks for the response. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not clear if Zelaya had the legal authority to call for the consultation. According to the WSJ (I know it's not reliable, but tons of people believe it), the Honduran Congress has that authority...I'm trying to find out if that's true or not. The article posted here from Rebel Reports made it clear to me it was a consultation, not a referendum, so that legal question doesn't apply.
This is the passage that has me wondering:
"That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress."
http://online.wsj.com/article
/SB124623220955866301.html
And yeah, most articles and conservative media outlets are promoting the 'fact' that Zelaya wanted another term. Or, indefinite terms. Bullshit.
Regarding ANYTHING in Latin America, the WSJ is ALWAYS deliberately wrong. No exceptions.
Read the opposite and you will know the reality.
Believe WSJ and you will have been suckered.
Personally, I am not comfortable being a sucker.
Oy, I'm not saying I believe it, I'm saying I want to prove that claim wrong but haven't found a source to do so yet.
But that's the point, the claim made in that passage is not "wrong", as in counterfactual, it is "wrong" as in misleading.
It IS true that in Honduras "A constituent assembly can only be called by a national referendum approved by its Congress." There is nothing untrue in this statement.
The problem with it is that NO ONE was calling for a constituent assembly.
That was absolutely NOT what Zelaya was doing. He was holding a non-binding poll that he called a "public consultation" on whether such a referendum would be wanted by the people in the future.
As for whether THIS -Zelaya's actual action- was "illegal":
1. I don't know any country in the world that claims a democratic government and society but disallows public opinion polls. If such a poll in Honduras could be declared "illegal" then that law or ruling is -in an of itself- without merit and illegitimate.
2. Even if this non-binding opinion poll were to be somehow legitimately "illegal", Surely a military coup d'etat, forced exile of the elected executive, suspension of rights and violent repression of the people's speech and movement would trump such a minor and technical "illegality"? Impeachment was the legal solution here.
You will search in vain for a source that refutes the letter of that quote from WSJ. But the SPIRIT of it -its attempt to justify the coup through confusion of facts- can be easily refuted.
Thank you. I just found an IPS story on this from June and it pretty much says the same thing. It looks like it was sort of illegal, based on "In the early hours of Wednesday, Congress passed a law banning any referendum or plebiscite being held within 180 days of presidential elections." But I would consider that an illegitimate law, if it was hurriedly passed just to spite Zelaya. I wonder if the executive has to sign laws in Honduras for them to take effect?
And yes, the military ousting the president is surely illegal and not the way to respond to anything Zelaya did, perhaps short of him using the military to do the same to Congress or something like that.
I was speaking more generally, but you're right, the specific law in question is total B.S..
I mean why 180 days, why not 90? Could it be because that would not have given "legal" justification to the suppression of the public consultation and the ouster of Zelaya?
Also, note how "referendum" and "plebicite" are co-mingled in the "law". The fact that one is binding and the other not is wholly and ridiculously ignored.
My concern in this situation, however, is just as much with the people of the "Western Democracies" or the "First World" as it is with the Honduran people or the specifics of Honduran law.
To me it is very worrisome that we are even HAVING such a debate on the "legitimacy" of what is quite obviously a military coup d'etat followed by removal of democratic norms. Especially after everyone so recently rallied around the cause of the Iranian people in the wake of their contested election. This conjuction of stories and events and (managed) responses is actually the most troubling thing of all when you realize that the "fraud" in Iran was just as ethereal as the "illegality" of the public-consultaion by Zelaya in Honduras.
It seems that information can be manipulated in the Net Age just as easily as before. Only now the goal of such manipulation is more humble in the face of the greater flow of non-manipulated info. Before the propagandists sought to mould general opinion. Now they merely seek to confuse and prejudice the less informed portion of opinion in order to impede the people through polarization and lack of information trust.
For instance, how do I know you are a genuine truth-seeker and not a shill or troll purposefully confusing this thread? How do you know I am not the same?
For all anyone reading this knows, you could be a low-level CIA asset or right-wing think-tank employee, and I could be a Chavista agent or even a paid employee of the Communist Party of China!
I'm not. And I'm sure you are not. But the point is to demonstrate how effective confusion and unsurity about information can be as a mode of control.
Not good.
You're right, disinformation is almost easier than before with the internet.
And your statements about the possibility of being shills is why I'm much more confrontational with people I have not seen post on here before taking what I consider to be idiotic views on an article. I generally trust people that have been around since I have been on here, and I've had time to get a feel for their opinions. I remember us commenting on the same articles back during election season, when my handle on here was ZachP, before it got banned (I had a very profane reaction to a bombing in Afghanistan after the election).
And the funny thing is, I used to want to work for the CIA, back when I bought the whole War on Terror line. And the funnier thing is, what woke me up to the bullshit about that was the courses I was taking at college to gain more expertise in that area. Now I am an intern at a media watchdog organization, and I think I have the best job in the world. This place is my antidote for all the crazy stuff I have to listen to on right-wing talk radio.
Wholeheartedly agree with # 2.
A reliable rule of thumb:
Any WSJ editorial opinion, any WaPo op-ed columnist, Fox News are ALWAYS wrong.
The leader of the coup Romeo Vasquez is a graduate of the School of the Americas...Any questions?
He also spent the 90s in prison as a car thief.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/al-giordano/2009/07/honduras-coup-general-was-charged-1993-auto-theft-ring
The US government is picking at nits (fiddling while Rome burns in the Neronic tradition) in order to avoid looking like the interfering thugs that they are.
These "legal" quibble and trifles are just distractions and derailers when the bottom line is this:
Zelaya was physically ousted as president by military goons,
which is illegal,
which is a coup.
There is no justification under the rule of law for a coup.
Therefore the new "government" is illegal.
Period.
Stop scratching and picking and put him back, pants-down Obama.
I am not sure where I stand on this issue. It seems that Zelaya, may have violated parts of the Honduran constitution. However, it seems as if there should have been a judicial process used to determine what rules (if any) he had broken. To achieve stability it is important that constitutional law be followed by all parties in the country. That is what truly has gone wrong here. The constitution may have been violated, and the violator was removed in an unconstitutional fashion, which has led to unrest. Here is the article which Zelaya probably violated. I think that the UN and the Obama administration should be advocating for Zelaya's return to Honduras, though I think that it is also important that they advocate for a legal investigation by the Honduran government on the constitutionality of both what Zelaya did, and the nature of his ouster.
Article 239 —
No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
He didn't violate or propose reforming that law though, he proposed writing a new Constitution, if the public agreed.
Apparently the Supreme Court ruling did lay out which laws he violated, but I know at least one of them referred to the law that referendums may not be held in an election year, but it wasn't a referendum, so I wouldn't trust their other rulings.
Also, I have no idea what the legal process for removing the president in Honduras is. Supposedly the military was acting on orders from the Supreme Court to remove him, but that doesn't sound legal to me, at least by our standards of democracy.
They have Impeachment, just like us.
Supreme Courts are not infallible pillars of justice, just look at the U.S. in 2000. In that case it was totally unconstitutional for the Court to even HEAR the case, let alone rule on it, yet they did both.
And then stipulate it is never to be used as precedent *shudder*
Here in part (I had to edit below 1000 words) is a widely circulated email sent to me from Honduras:
---------------------
This is a well written secuence to clarify the events for the destitution of Honduran Ex-President Mel Zelaya.
The Honduran constitution, enacted in 1982, has 378 articles. 6 of these articles are “cast in stone”, meaning that they can NOT be changed. These 6 articles deal with defining the type of government, territory claims, and presidential term limits. They are the basis of the Honduran democracy.
Article 42, Section 5 says that anyone who is found to “incite, promote, or aid in the continuation or re-election of the President” would face loss of citizenship. Remember this one later on in this saga.
Any changes to the constitution have to be initiated by the legislative branch. The congress has to convene a constituent assembly. That’s basically a group of people selected by the congress to analyze any proposed changes and form those ideas into the new constitution. After the proposed changes are formulated, the congress would approve them to be put to a national referendum. The
executive branch (the President) has nothing to do with that process.
Although any changes to the constitution have to be initiated by the legislative branch, Zelaya decided he’d call his own referendum.
The Honduran Supreme Court says “Sorry Mel, you can’t do a referendum. That’s not within your power as president”.
Mel, or more probably one of his advisors, figures out that if a referendum can’t be done, we could probably do a survey or a poll instead. However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that regardless of what you call it, if it acts like a referendum the president can’t do it.
Mel continued to talk of doing the poll on June 28 regardless of the Supreme Court.
The Congress looks at the poll that Mel wants to do and gives an opinion that the poll would be illegal and they will not support it. Remember that Mel’s own political party is in control of the congress.
The Attorney General also analyzes the poll and determines that it is illegal. Over the course of the weeks leading to June 28, the AG reiterates many times that the poll is illegal and anyone participating in the poll would be committing a crime and could be arrested.
Mel runs into another logistical snafu. He needs some ballots printed. The entire political structure of Honduras (except him) has ruled that the poll is illegal so he asks his buddy Hugo Chavez to print the ballots.
The rhetoric in the 2 weeks before the “poll” gets tense. Every legal opinion in Honduras says that the poll is illegal. The Supreme Court reaffirms its ruling that the poll is illegal. The Attorney General keeps saying that the poll is illegal and that anyone participating is committing a crime. Mel’s own political party says that the poll is illegal. There literally is not one legitimate group in the country that is siding with Mel about the poll.
Traditionally the military handles the distribution of the ballots and voting materials. The head of the military, Romeo Vasquez Velasquez says that the military will not participate in the poll because the Supreme Court is the entity that determines what is legal and what is illegal in Honduras. The Supreme Court has determined that the poll is illegal, so the military will not participate.
Mel Zelaya promptly fired Romeo Vasquez. The other heads of military (Navy and Air Force) as well as the Minister of Defense resigned in support of Vasquez.
The next day the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Vasquez was fired without reason and demanded his reinstatement. Zelaya refused.
The ballots arrive in Honduras (from Venezuela on a Venezuelan flagged plane). The Attorney General demands that the ballots be confiscated and held at a military installation. Mel decides that if the military won’t distribute the ballots, he’ll get his own people to distribute them.
The Attorney General says that the President has committed treason and asks for him to be removed from office. The congress created a commission to examine Zelaya’s actions and determine if removal from office is appropriate.
There could be criminal charges brought against the president and the trial would be handled by the judicial branch.
Not much different than anyone else accused of a crime. I’ve not heard of any provision in the constitution to temporarily remove a president from office until the criminal charges were adjudicated. What would you do? Let a man accused of treason remain as the sitting president until the trial was completed?
On Saturday, June 27, Mel got most, if not all, of the ballots distributed around the country. The polls were set to open at 7am on Sunday.
The Supreme Court voted to remove Zelaya. The Congress decided to remove Zelaya. The Attorney General stated many times that Zelaya was committing illegal acts and in fact committing treason. The military determined that the poll was illegal and that their responsibility was to uphold the constitution as opposed to supporting the president.
Early Sunday morning, about 6am, the military went to the president’s house and removed him from the building. He was put on a plane to Costa Rica. This was done to enforce the ruling from the Supreme Court.
Once Mel had been removed, the President of the Congress (Roberto Micheletti) was sworn in as the new President of Honduras. This was exactly the person that is indicated by the constitution. It was a proper and legal succession of the presidency. The first thing that Micheletti did was confirm that the regularly scheduled elections would be held in November. His post is temporary until the new President was duly elected.
Thank you cazador, This timeline is extremely helpful as it lays out all of the steps in the process leading up to Zelaya's ouster. This is something that the media has largely avoided doing. It is helpful to see how this whole crisis evolved. I would say however that I do not think that Zelaya's breaking of constitutional law merits a military ouster. I think that the government could have tackled Zelaya's actions in such a way that would not have caused such a public and international uproar. If Zelaya broke the law then he should stand trial for what he did, not be exiled. This kind of coup only serves to continue political instability in the region.
he didnt break the law.
he proposed adding a referendum question to the upcoming election on whether or not to rewrite the constitution. it says nothing about term limits. and even if the process for rewriting was approved it would begin after zelaya's term expired and he left office.
lets not be dense on time and space like the coup plotters want us to be. physics is hard but not this hard.
in order for zelaya to be up for re-election the rewriting of the constitution would have to occur BEFORE the election, not after. the proposal was scheduled to be an occurence OF the election. not before.
zelaya broke no law, but what he did do was use his constitutional powers to put in place a set of motions which threatened the existing power centers that would be threatened by the referendum.
"What would you do? Let a man accused of treason remain as the sitting president until the trial was completed?"
It seems like if you are from the USA, you would have done even less than that. We and our congress have just done nothing while Bush and Obama commit their treasonous war crimes.
But back to Honduras, the poll would have had no legally binding effect, but it would have been through (unlike a private poll) and would have had an important POLITICAL effect. It would have accurately guaged the mood of the people and that is exactly what the elite ruling class does not want to happen. The corporate power brokers do not want the people in charge and certainly do not want the people to realize how much say that they could have. That is why there was a military coup.
Ask yourself: What would the harm be in having a non-binding opinion poll? Why would an opinion poll EVER be considered illegal? It was NOT a binding referendum which the constitution does not allow at this time. Why is there a media blackout within the country (except for the coup leader's story)? Why are they hiding the facts from their own people, including the fact that there are mass demonstrations against the coup? Why is the military shooting non-violent demonstrators?
You paint a nice story, but the coup has been universally condemned. Of course Obama only very mildly condemned the coup (and refuses to utter the "coup" word) since it is the USA corporations and CIA that are most likely the real perpetrators of the coup.
wow, very interesting! To me the most fascinating thing is that it seems to me that you actually believe the Honduran military was right in kidnapping Zelaya and forcing him into exile. If I didn't have the information from a previous poster about the illegitimacy of the Honduran constitution in the first place, enacted in 1982 with the help of Ronald Reagan's thugs, I would have been very confused. You used "illegal" so many times I started to feel like it was a comedy routine. And it is comic.
What happens in other countries, often kind of clumsy attempts to keep the ruling class in power through undemocratic means such as coups, media control, massacres, political detentions, etc., are wonderful mirrors into our very own souls. We all know that the same things happen here in the US, but our ruling elite have become so masterful in selling us their mythology or distracting us altogether, that we rarely see clearly how the system works. But here in Honduras we have a wonderful example of a law being written to obviously serve the interests of the ruling elite and not the majority of Hondurans. When someone with a different idea of justice attempts to change the law, which has been so protected by subsets of laws and regulations that it seems it is invincible, he is accused of breaking the law. Then, the thugs who always appear when the interests of the ruling elite are threatened, break into this guy's home in the middle of the night and force him onto a plane to leave the country. Personally, I'd rather be in Costa Rica too, but I digress. Those thugs are actually carrying out the rule of law as written in the constitution. Now why can't you all just see the world as it is written in the Honduran Constitution?
Amazing.
I was just about to post more or less what tanguero just said. The laundry list of legalities presented above makes a certain narrow sense, until it is considered next to the information shared by El Polaco Argentino. A confident democracy would not have a freak-out over an opinion poll. Coup supporters wave the legal issues like a flag, but ignore or tacitly approve actions such as the removal and exile of an elected president at gunpoint, dusk to dawn curfews enforced by the army, suppression of media outlets, assault of foreign diplomats, curtailment of civil rights and so on.
I'm not the author, only pasting from an email written by an American who has lived in Honduras since 2002. Although the author would have preferred Zelaya have been arrested and held in Honduras, the author truly believes Zelaya's removal was right. He writes:
I think that the Hondurans should be honored for what occurred. I know that I’ve never been prouder of a group of people than I’ve been of Hondurans the past several days. Instead of being isolated from the world and denounced as being “anti-democratic” they should be lifted on the shoulders of all free men around the world. I’m sure that there are plenty of people in Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea that would LOVE to hear the story of what a small country can do to ensure democracy lives in their society for their children to enjoy. That is if the people in those countries ever hear of the great accomplishments of a small third world country with ideals and principals larger than the “democratic showcase” of the first world.
Personally, I agree with other comments saying that the use of the military in this way should not be condoned.
The American who has lived in Honduras since 2002 doesn't just happen to work for the CIA does he or she?
Just curious as the information, while very well written, seems to be out of sync with the other information supplied by people in Honduras.
I don't know if the writer is CIA or not. Although it's possible, I doubt he would have mentioned his nationality. His being retired and living on Roatan also makes it highly unlikely. I do know that his views are shared by many Hondurans which is why his email is being circulated.
"The military determined that the poll was illegal and that their responsibility was to uphold the constitution as opposed to supporting the president."
If this is true it raises the question of whether the military has interpreted/supported the constitution consistently or whether it only interpreted/supported the constitution in the favor of elites.
Analyses written for US consumption typically ignore the issue of class and thereby usually leave the people stranded, confused, divided. The issue of class cannot be ignored. Elites will abuse anything, including rhetoric and the rule of law, to oppress the people.
rtdrury,
I questioned this same sentence and concluded, based on the chronology of events, that what the writer meant was that the military accepted the supreme court's decision and the salient point is that the military had to decide between the constitution and the president.
Caz
Yes and in a pinch the people ought to support the rule of law (constitution) over the rule of men (president). But it seems that if we wish to progress, we have to address the class struggle. Does the Honduran military consistently interpret/support the constitution to favor the people, to favor the elites or to favor chaos? If to favor chaos, or to favor elites, then acting to remove the president is illegitimate, even through legal means (impeachment). The coup is an illegal means, and it appears very likely in favor of elites this time, and so very unlikely that the military consistently interprets/supports the constitution to favor the people. It's a new century, and we're looking at how to help the people help themselves without doing harm in the process, advertent or inadvertent. It may be that Hondurans need, more than anything, protection of their rights to resources. Under such protection they will be able to strengthen the element of self-sufficiency in their culture/traditions.
amen, increasingly we are asked to consume corporate media, that supplies only bias with no back-story. For sure it is impossible from our vantage point to fully gauge public opinion in Iran or Honduras, or to condense the true motivations of all parties involved, but we are not helped in understanding these issues by being supplied with slanted information that floats above the history of the region concerned; in a classes socio-economic void.
Let me get one thing straight. I believe what's happening in Honduras is up to the Hondurans to sort out. I don't believe that the US should meddle in Iran's internal affairs and I believe that standard should apply to Honduras.
OK that said, don't feed me that Fairy Tale that what Zelaya did was illegal and that somehow justified this putsch. Yes Hondurans should sort this out themselves, but please spare me the bogus "Zelaya broke the law" fairy tales. Thank you.
Your comments display a one sided view. The Constitution in Honduras and for that matter in other countries where it has been drafted to benefit the oligarchy and the international market interests is not a representation of democracy,
However, in Honduras, Mr . Zelaya was trying to carry out changes within the limited legal framework he was allowed. He intended to carry out a non-binding public consultation about the formation of a National Constitutional Assembly. To do this he invoked article 5 of the "Civil Participation Act" of 2006. This act was approved by the Honduran National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court when it was published in the Official Paper in 2006.
The fact that he was able to get to the point where he would be able to consult the citizenry it is what really scared the whole parasitic system of public institutions in Honduras , who depend on the good will and the money from the USA.
The putsch was probably going to have a more palatable face (something like saying that Mr. Zelaya was pursuing an illegal second term mandate ) but the military, being the gorillas they are, could not wait and did not finesse the coup. This placed the US administration in a difficult position, particularly in view of the repudiation from everyone else. This can explain the anger behind the ugly comment from the Micheletti representative for Foreign Affairs regarding Obama. The racist Enrique Ortiz referred to Mr. Obama as "the blackie one". That can show you the kind of people they are and that you justify in your comments.
One can only just love it how the new government of Barack Obama makes its first coup in Latin America while denying that it has done so all at one and the same time. Slick WillY lives! Zelaya was simply headed to alligning Honduras against the US in the region along with all the other countries doing so, and the US trained Honduran military was assigned the task of stepping in and stopping that from happening.
where are you getting your information? this sounds like total bull spit to me.
Where are you getting yours?
This is a comment thread, not a doctoral paper, remember? ;)
Information is not to be all that trusted when you are dealing with a situation that involves the active participation of masters of obscuring and manipulating information.
You are right that the poster is making a large assumption and a blanket assertion.
But both are based on long history and logical judgement. For many who have studied the history of U.S.-"Latin" relations, the basic principles of power and explotation have more resonance than the minutiae of "fact-based" arguments.
Ask yourself this:
Why do YOU think the U.S., the nation with the most presence in Honduras and the most power to intervene there, is acting as if it is helpless in the face of these events? Despite the Administration's luke-warm condemnations of them and the vitually world unity calling for the restoration of Zelaya and democracy?
The only answer I can come up with is that the Admin. (and likely the Corporatists and the Imperialist Military elements) wants to somehow make it the six-months to the elections that would have ended Zelaya's role anyway in order to put a "democratic" mask on the whole thing. That this is exactly what the coup leaders and the Pretender President want to accomplish and what nearly the rest of the Globe wants to prevent should be troubling to us.
At least more troubling than lack of "sources" and "references" for comment thread posts, as if we were all working on the footnotes to some term paper.
This coup is highly significant due to the subtle way that it was carried out. The usurpers used and continue to use the constitution of 1982 as cover for their deed. The reason they persist in this charade is that it is, in fact, the constitution of 1982 that was the real coup. That document provides for permanent military rule in Honduras with only a cosmetic veneer of civilian authority. Let's be specific.
The Last "official" coup in Honduras occurred in 1975. That military government was typically brutal and typically allied with US government interests. Their army formed the infamous battalion 316 that tortured and "disappeared" hundreds of Hondurans in the name of domestic security.
Helping the army to organize disappearances at that time were Roberto Alfiere Gonzalez and Alfredo Mario Mingolla, emissaries from Argentina’s brutal military dictatorship. Honduras' military commanders also provided bases and supplies for the Reagan Administration's not so secret Contra War. Honduran military activities were closely coordinated at that time by the famous death squad ambassador, John Negroponte.
In 1982, the international spotlight was beginning to shine on these thugs so they decided to set up a civilian government to run Honduras for them while they continued to control things in the background. The constitution born at this time had questionable parents and ominous midwives. It is no wonder that there were included in it several important provisions designed to shackle civilian leadership and allow maximum discretion of action for the military.
While the constitution proclaims in one article that the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces (art. 245), another states that he exercises that power through the Army Chief of Staff (art.278). This legal loophole makes it impossible for the president to exercise any control over the army other than what the army chief of staff allows. Moreover, if the president removes the chief of staff, he removes his only means of control over the military, putting them on their own, in this case at the service of the Supreme court. This is one of the central features of the constitution that President Zelaya hoped to change.
The 1982 constitution also makes it impossible for any president to serve more than a four year term. While this hamstringing of the president is bad enough in and of itself, there is an additional provision that prohibits amendment to the constitution on this point. The military government that moved into the shadow of this constitution in 1982 sought to ensure that no civilian would ever be around long enough to make any substantive changes in the true source of power in Honduras. President Zelaya could not change this for himself, but, I am sure, hoped he could do so for his successor.
Zelaya was unpopular and would not have stood a chance of being re-elected even if he could run four months from now. He was about as popular as George W Bush was during his last six months in office. No one, however would have seriously thought of kidnapping W and shipping him off to exile and if they had, the military would not have undertaken the task. Something that was just not possible for the people of the USA turned out to be business as usual for Honduras.
Zelaya was removed not as a seizure of power but as a reaction to his challenge to the military's already firm grip on control. Had the election taken place as scheduled on June 28 and a constituent assembly formed to draft a new constitution, it would have been the beginning of the end for military rule in Honduras. This would have been Zelaya's parting shot to the generals who really run things there.
More important than the return of Zelaya to his office is the return of the right of the people of Honduras to draft a new constitution that puts them and not their generals in control of the nation and its resources.
Thanks for the extra info about the Honduran Constitution, this has been surprisingly lacking from articles on this site regarding this issue.
Yes, thank you for the information about the history of the Honduran constitution. Interesting that you state that Zelaya was not popular. That information is also missing from any articles here on CD (I don't bother to read the corporate press) - I am wondering however, if his popularity will be increased by the resistance that is forming against the coup.
More from the email I received from Honduras. This pertains to Zelaya's unpopularity:
Mel Zelaya was elected 3 ½ years ago with an underwhelming 49% of the vote. He was seen as a fairly conservative member of the liberal party. The general feeling when he was elected was that he wasn’t the greatest pick, but his background as a wealthy logger and rancher coupled with his more liberal social policies would probably be OK.
Almost from day 1, Mel started shifting Honduras policies to the left.
Zelaya tried to nationalize the oil industry – forcing all fuel distributors to buy from 1 company. The US rightfully reminded Mel that the US oil companies had a lot invested here and the confiscating of those assets would not be a good thing. Mel changed his mind a couple of days later.
Mel gave away the fishing rights to an area that Honduras has been fishing for decades if not a hundred years. He gave those rights to Nicaragua for nothing – or at least nothing that was ever publicly reported. Mel forgot to mention this transaction to anyone in the country, let alone the fisherman. Guess how the fishermen found out? The Nicaraguan Navy confiscated several boats over a period of a few weeks. The crews on these boats were detained from a few days to a few weeks. Some of the boats were eventually returned to the rightful owners – after paying “fines”. Some of the boats even had the electronics and gear still on board when they were returned to the owners. The Honduran government did absolutely nothing to repatriate these boats.
Mel wanted Honduras to join ALBA – a collection of countries that was formed by Cuba and Venezuela to counteract NAFTA/CAFTA from the US. When this was announced, there was a lot of concern – especially from the business community. I was in a meeting with the local congressman less than a week before it was ratified. The message being sent was that this was just a way to get cheap oil from Venezuela. The congress wouldn’t consider ratifying this treaty for 6 or 8 months and by then Mel would have the oil that he was after. Again, less than a week later Mel got the treaty was ratified by the congress.
Not too long ago, the minimum wage was raised from L. 3,500 per month to L. 5,500. That’s about a 60% increase. I’m not saying that the minimum wage didn’t need to be raised, but this huge increase was 3 times more than the labor unions were requesting (20%) and 6 times more than the business organizations had offered (10%). These increases caused tremendous layoffs on the mainland. Many maquillas (garment factories) began to move to Nicaragua because the cost of business in Honduras had gotten too high. This was another huge drop in jobs. I’ve not seen the actual number of jobs lost because of the 60% increase in minimum wage, but it was staggering.
Nicely draped misinformation. The golpistas's supporters are showing deftness in their propaganda. If Zelaya could run for a second term, if he lived, he would be re-elected overwhelmingly.
Worldwide, the far right is Public Enemy #1; they have no qualms about killing us, so we should have none regarding them. This is the Class War's reality. There is no "playing nice" with those people. The war criminal Robert McNamara was reputedly a liberal, but realistically he was far right, in a manner similar to how Obama is far right.
Ask yourself why the 1982 constitution limits the president to one term (remembering the circumstances at that time, and what powerful neighbor to the north "consulted" on its writing).
Term limits are a tool of elites to prevent an "excess of democracy" from interfering with the orderly upward transfer of wealth; recall that in the US, the president's two-term limit was imposed following FDR's election to a fourth term, which scared the bejeezus out of the propertied classes.
Regardless, I'm sure that nowhere in the Honduran constitution is there a provision for nullifying an election at gunpoint.