Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Honduras: Regime Says 'Yes' to Talks but Squelches Protests
TEGUCIGALPA - While it publicly
declares its willingness to continue to engage in dialogue, the de
facto regime led by Roberto Micheletti in Honduras is taking a
hard-line approach to protests demanding the return of ousted President
Manuel Zelaya. So far three people have been killed, around 100 have
been injured, and 150 have been arrested and held for several hours or
days.
In the 36 days since Zelaya was hauled out of bed by
soldiers and put on a plane to Costa Rica, the authorities say 260
demonstrations, roadblocks and public sector strikes have been held
around the country by the president's supporters.
High school teacher Roger Vallejo, who was shot in the head
when the police broke up a roadblock on Thursday in the capital, died
after two days in intensive care. Another teacher, Martin Florencio
Rivera, was stabbed to death after leaving Vallejo's wake Saturday.
Both deaths are under investigation. The teachers' union,
which has been on strike, demanding Zelaya's return, blamed the police
for Vallejo's death and urged the prosecutors to carry out a swift
inquiry.
In the same police operation, activist Carlos Reyes' arm was
broken. Reyes plans to run as an independent presidential candidate in
the general elections scheduled for Nov. 29.
Vallejo's wake is being held at a high school, and the burial
will take place on Tuesday, to give relatives from outside the capital
time to arrive.
The wake has drawn large numbers of teachers, students, social activists and members of the general public.
At the wake, the leaders of the Resistance Front against the Coup
d'Etat announced a six-day march that will set out Wednesday from
different parts of the country and converge on the two biggest cities:
Tegucigalpa, and San Pedro Sula in the north.
The plan is to form two large groups of demonstrators to demand the restoration of the constitutional government.
The first protester to be killed was 19-year-old Isis Obed
Murillo, who was shot by the security forces at Tegucigalpa airport on
Jul. 5 when Zelaya's attempt to return to the country by plane was
thwarted by the military.
A leader of the teachers' union, Lina Pineda, told IPS that
"we never imagined that the break-up of the roadblock (where Vallejo
was killed) would be so violent. They surrounded the demonstrators and
began to lob tear gas canisters at them and beat several leaders with
their nightsticks, while others were taken to police posts, although
they were released shortly after."
Pineda said that although the police had warned in a Jul. 29
communiqué that they would not tolerate any more roadblocks "because we
were hurting the economy and the country's powerful elites, we never
thought that warning was going to end in tragic violent incidents like
the death of our colleague Vallejo."
"We are going to use the authority given to us by law; people
have the right to hold peaceful protests, but not to block other
rights," police spokesman Orlin Cerrato told IPS, referring to
occupations of buildings and traffic blockades.
Over the weekend, the de facto regime lifted the curfew in
place for nearly a month, except along the border with Nicaragua, where
a 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM curfew remains in place.
Hundreds of Zelaya supporters have crossed into Nicaragua,
where the leader has spent much of his time over the last two weeks
near the Honduran border.
Micheletti said Monday that "we are going to restore order and
control; we will not allow the economy to be further damaged, and we
will not permit violence on the part of protesters; we are going to
enforce the law."
Local and international human rights groups have called for
respect for constitutional guarantees in the border zones, and for
measures to protect human rights defenders and social activists.
From his centre of operations on Nicaragua's northern border,
Zelaya lamented Vallejo's death and announced that "peaceful people's
militias" have started to be trained by his supporters on several
estates in the Nicaraguan region of Ocotal, 25 km from the Honduran
border post at Las Manos in the southeastern Honduran province of El
Paraíso.
On Monday, Costa Rican President Óscar Arias, who has been brokering
talks between Zelaya and the de facto regime, planned to meet with
Organisation of American States Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza,
Spanish Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega, and
Enrique Iglesias, head of the Organisation of Ibero-American States
secretariat.
Micheletti praised the meeting between Arias and Iglesias, and
asked that the latter be sent to Honduras as a foreign envoy, to meet
with different political and social sectors to discuss the crisis and
Arias's 11-point compromise proposal, which includes the return of
Zelaya as president and a political amnesty.
In the meantime, Zelaya has begun to send out signals that he
is interested in returning to the talks with Arias, after meeting last
week in Managua with U.S. ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens and State
Department officials.
Although the results of the meeting were not reported, remarks
to the Honduran press by Zelaya's foreign minister Patricia Rodas
indicate that Llorens insisted on another round of talks mediated by
Arias.
"The more time that goes by, the stronger we become," deputy
foreign minister of the de facto regime, Martha Lorena Alvarado, told a
local TV station Sunday night. "But we are willing to engage in any
dialogue that respects our constitution, and we believe that although
the international pressure has been strong, we have the unity needed to
withstand it, without abandoning the negotiations."
The regime boasts that it has survived the first month,
despite the international pressure and isolation: no foreign government
has recognised the de facto government, the EU and Latin American
countries have withdrawn their ambassadors, and the U.S. and EU have
suspended millions of dollars in aid.
According to the head of the industrialists' association, Adolfo
Facussé, "things are settling down here, and we have begun to make
contact with foreign investors who were not interested in coming to the
country before.
"We are channeling investments of nearly 500 million dollars
from Canadian and U.S. business interests, and I think Zelaya is waging
a struggle that makes no sense," Facussé told IPS.
"From outside the country, they want to impose on us a
president who is not popular domestically, and if he comes, he won't
make it, he won't be able to govern, because no one is behind him," he
argued.
Zelaya, a wealthy rancher who was elected as the centre-right Liberal
Party candidate, veered to the left after taking office in 2006,
alienating the country's conservative elites, the military, the courts
and the legislature.
The coup was precipitated by his attempt to hold a non-binding
referendum asking voters whether they wanted to elect a constituent
assembly to redraft the constitution. In the days leading up to the
coup, the courts ruled that the referendum was illegal, Zelaya sacked
the armed forces commander for refusing to distribute the ballot boxes
for the vote, scheduled for Jun. 28, and Zelaya refused to reinstate
the military chief after the Supreme Court ordered him to do so.
23 Comments so far
Show AllWell balanced commentary. Together with Raimondo's op ed at antiwar.com, it's a pretty good synopsis of what's happening in Honduras.
How would YOU know?
The article says three have been killed while practically all Latin American news sources say at least four have been killed and Honduran activists say more. The Committee of Families of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras (COFADEH) said in a report released in mid July that over a thousand had been arrested, not "around 100."
What's not said about the San Jose Accords is that they call for abandoning any plans, or even discussion, much less a popular vote, on writing a new constitution. But writing a new constitution, as a way of restructuring the society, as has happened in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, is much too important to the people in the streets and to the organizations representing them to be surrendered. Even if Zelaya agreed to that proposal, the people wouldn't and he would lose what limited support he has. It isn't really about Manuel Zelaya the man.
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/honduras-stalemate-continues-repression.html
Why would writing a new Constitution be necessary, when there are methods to change the existing Constitution? Also, why would it make sense to restructure society by writing a new Constitution? Wouldn't it be better to introduce change by changing the law, rather than the Constitution?
One could have argued the same about the state of German laws in 1945, you could have just amended it, law by law, but it would take a while to fix all the errors.
Similarly, the existing Honduran Constitution, from what I have heard, strongly favors the existing elites and prevents Honduras from being a fully representative democracy.
EDIT: Looking at the actual Constitution, my analogy doesn't hold. It's actually a fairly bland document, meaning of course, like the US Constitution in the hands of the elite, it ends up legitamizing their power to deny common people real control. Of course, when their candidates abuse executive power in violation (how many human rights violations in Hondouras since 1982?), no one in the legislature complains, but when someone tries to be a anti-elite leftist, all hell breaks loose.
EDIT2: In fact, the only method of revising the constitution is through the legislature, controlled by the elite. Understandably, Zalaya couldn't pass reforms through there, and they probably weren't too happy about his attempts to circumvent them and reduce elite power. (Yes, I know, Zalaya is a member of the upper class too.)
“Why would writing a new Constitution be necessary, when there are methods to change the existing Constitution?...Wouldn't it be better to introduce change by changing the law, rather than the Constitution?”
Why do you bother posting questions you could answer yourself if you put forth the effort by thinking a bit and questioning the position you aren’t willing to budge from? The constitution itself was written in large part by the US right wing, along with the Honduran right wing, literally days after the downfall of a right wing dictatorship government in an elite power sharing agreement. This system has lead to such corruption that the UN has said that the “time for change is now”, and the US State Department has said that the Supreme Court in Honduras has a history of politicized and biased decisions that have increased corruption, wealth disparities and theft. It, like many Latin American constitutions, made popular participation impossible and only allows a small group of elites in government to change the constitution. Do you think the elites in the US government can change the policies and the functioning of government when it so benefits them? Of course not, and they’ll use the argument you’re putting forward now, why change what works (even if it really doesn’t)? Honduras’ system has lead to it being stuck in crippling poverty, wealth concentration that is amongst the highest in the region (which says something) and the hallowing out of democracy, amongst other things.
Why did Venezuelans, Bolivians and Ecuadorians change their constitutions instead of begging elites in government to simply modify the old ones? The simple answer is that the old constitutions were fundamentally flawed and built on anti-democratic foundations. Why work so hard to make a turd smell good? Articulate why the constitution in those countries should have stayed in place and simply modified and not replaced. I don’t think you could and I think the same holds true in regards to Honduras. You can’t just ask “Why replace the existing constitution with another?”, you have to be able to answer the opposite question “Why not?”, and there is no argument (given how outdated and anti-democratic the current one is in Honduras) you could put forward that would suffice in a country that is stuck in poverty the way Honduras is, in large part because of the old constitution.
Sorry, but I don't buy the argument. If a group of Hondurans wants to change the constitution, they can work to elect Congressmen who'll vote for such changes. If they can't get organized and get the majority needed, then it's probably better not to change it.
The key concept, which seems to escape many of you, is that Constitutions are supposed to be short, precise, focused, and very hard to change. This is what stops the majority from abusing the minority. If a Constitution can be changed by a simple majority vote (and this is the implication when you propose creating a Constitutional convention ruled by majority vote), then it's not worth having.
Regarding those other countries, I'm not convinced having new Constitutions means much to them, what counts is the quality of the government running things, and none of them are effective thus far. We'll see in 20 years or so, but I bet Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela will be a lot poorer if they stick to the same government style. History shows these socialist regimes evolve into autocracies which mismanage the economy and end up with a majority of poor people ruled by a small group of "noveau rich", a caste of party members and military officers who really benefit while the people eat dung. As they say in Africa, justice must be served, and it's their time to eat.
I'm an old man, and I've almost given up on pointing out these failings to young left wingers over time. Socialism is a nice idea, but you guys have to have your eyes open and deal with reality. Unfortunately your dogmatism and innocence leads you always to the same traps, and in the end, it's more of the same. Human nature eats you as surely as it eats anybody else.
"Human nature eats you as surely as it eats anybody else."
I'll start with this, since it illustrates well how deluded you are. Up until the agricultural revolution people lived in what amounted to primative communism. Most, not all, most, land was collectively owned, there was little difference in class and economic power. Up until a few centuries ago, a good portion of the land in Europe was collectively owned, capitalism itself was created in large part by the state, the minority at the time forcing change on the majority, many of them thrown off the now privatized land and given no rights outside of what they could earn on the market. The resources and land varied in quality, the best land was given to themselves by themselves. In many cultures outside the west the same holds true. Were these people living in opposition to their own nature? Were Russian peasants, as late as the late 19th century, living in opposition to human nature because a good portion of their land was collectively owned? There are endless other examples. Human beings are complex, no one in their right minds, outside of capitalists like you, is arrogant enough to proclaim that they know what the hell human nature is, and that somehow your ahistoric philosophy is in accordance with it.
I've asked many people like you this question, I will ask you too: Which country in modern times has developed without massive state intervention? Which country has developed using "free market" economic policy, with little to no collectivist measures? Ha-Joon Chang, a Korean economist, has studies this. He argues only two could remotely even try to claim this (and it isn't the highly protectionist and state centered economic development of the US or Britain), Switzerland and the Netherlands. He could find no others, the affects of adopting the measures in modern times is, without exception, horrific.
"Sorry, but I don't buy the argument. If a group of Hondurans wants to change the constitution, they can work to elect Congressmen who'll vote for such changes."
So your argument is simply to vote the right person in and all will be saved. Where have I heard this strategy before? What the hell world do you live in old man? How hard, keep in mind the brutal and anti-democratic government in power now because someone had the audacity to ask a non-binding question to his countrymen about what THEY wanted to do with their constitution, would that be realistically in Honduras? Much harder than working outside of electorial politics, and it would take far longer. As I said, many non-leftist organizations and groups can see that fundamental change needs to happen in Honduras (is the UN and the US State Department leftist now?). Most change happens outside of government and politics all together, the new ideas force themselves on elites and government. Social organizations, unions, cooperatives, these are all working to displace entrenched interests in the private sector and the government that the private sector owns. It reaches a point where they have to compete in the free market of ideas and they can't win, because their ideas in practice are so horribly bad.
Latin America has tried your policies more than any one region. What have the affects been? Increased wealth concentration, hallowing out of democracy, corruption, environmental destruction, amongst other things. You should look at the election results accross the region in recent years as obvious proof, none of the people who won would be in power or would have a chance in hell without the action of people oustide of government or politics all together. Here's something else to think about, the results of non-partisan Chilean polling company Latinobarrometro a few months ago (what do you think would be the results NOW after the capitalist feeding frenzy around the world?).
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N144...
"According to the annual Latinobarometro survey, more than 80 percent of those living in continental Latin America and the Dominican Republic -- a region of 400 million people -- believe the government should control and oversee public services such as pensions, health and education, the annual survey showed."
"...In Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, some 90 percent believe that pensions should be in the hands of the state. All currently have private pension systems. Seventy-eight percent of respondents in Chile also believe the telecoms system, privatized 20 years ago, should be in state hands."
Your points are off. I suggest you limit yourself to stating your points, rather than claim to be making mine, it doesn't help you make your point. As for human nature, it remains there.
Most successful societies have endured while accommodating human greed. Communism blends ideas, created by impractical individuals whose common denominator is ignorance - and a serious disregard for human nature.
It thrives sometimes because it calls upon a sense of unfulfilled justice and revenge, and there's a lot of injustice and bad deeds to avenge in this world. But it ends being dogmatic, and its believers are exceptionalists (meaning they're willing to break the law, convention, or whatever stands in the way of their idealized state of bliss where all of us are supposed to play and never desire to win because after all its to each according to its need).
I lived in Russia, and I've seen the results. And please don't tell me it wasn't a communist state. It was. It degenerated into the same garbage all of you will deliver whenever you are given the chance to take over.
Nobody gives a rat's butt if you lived in Russia. It is not part of Latin America.
Nobody is evenly slightly interested in your ignorant take on the world.
Go back to school--clearly your education was and continues to be very insufficient.
"Your points are off."
Which points, and why are they off? Of course you can't articulate why. Just saying so is an argument, right?
"As for human nature, it remains there."
As I said, only capitalist economists, who need their idea of human nature to be their foundation, claim they can say what human nature is. Anyone else who knows human and economic history, psycology, how complex the brain is (and how relatively little we know of the brain), knows that for what you are saying to be true, people would have to have lived against their own nature for the vast majority of human history. In other words, again, you say it and just saying it is an argument to you.
"Most successful societies have endured while accommodating human greed."
This is the only thing you said that had a shred of truth. The US and the West does not have their standard of living simply because they "accommodated human greed" in the economic realm, but this has allowed them to back policies that HAVE helped this in regards to the military. Human greed allows the US to have the most active and violently counter-revolutionary military in the world since WWII (former state department official William Blum has a partial list if you're interested, free online). Without the US getting involved in coups, the overthrowing of democracy, violent military and economic attacks, people in other countries would have developed, would have consumed more of the world's resources (leaving less for the West) and they could have industries that could feed and satisfy their own people. There is a finite amount of resources in the world and people in the developed countries consume about six times more, per capita, than people in the rest of the world. This has gotten much worse since the introduction of the market systyem. Without American, French, British, (increasingly) Canadian, Australian, amongst others, imperialism (military and economic) the poorer countries could consume and control more of the world's resources, especially those IN their countries that they are forced to export at less than a fair market value. If you do any research, which you don't, you'd know how raw materials have lost most of their value relative to manufactured goods in the international markets, the only thing that has a chance to help them would be a producer cartel, a more democratic and egalitarian OPEC of sorts. Attempts at this have failed, since there are many fascists like you around to rationalize whatever authoritarian and Orwellian violence the elites do to these attempts.
So, you lived in Russia, why don't you talk to someone in Haiti. Compare the experiences, ask them how greed has done them. Go to Honduras, ask them how much they appreciate their "individual freedom". Same goes with Bolivia, El Salvador, hell most of the region. Yeah, greed has done a minority of the world well, at the expense of the majority, but it works for YOU and you don't need objectively satisfying arguments.
"it ends being dogmatic, and its believers are exceptionalists"
You have a gift for irony. You give lectures about human nature, the wonderful affects of greed (I REALLY appreciate the greed of Wall Street since I've gotten out of school, I appreciate that there are far less jobs and the ones around pay less), all part of the capitalist philosophy, then say that comment.
Haiti is a disaster because they failed to take care of their environment, and reproduced like gerbils. It's a good example of a collapsed socity due to overpopulation.
Regarding human nature, none of your arguments are sticking. Human beings are wired to look out for number one, and communism isn't compatible with human nature. This is why it ALWAYS fails.
"Regarding human nature, none of your arguments are sticking."
I didn't make an argument, I stated FACTS. Human beings lived in societies for the majority of our existense that were, using modern terms, communist. The majority of property was owned collectively (this was the case in Europe up until a few centuries ago. In your home country this was the case on a wide scale amongst peasants as the late as the latrer part of the 19th century), there was relatively little class and economic differences, as Karl Polonyi said, the economy was embedded in social relations, not the other way around like in capitalism. When capitalism was born it was born largely out of the state, the elites in government privatized the land and gave the best land to themselves. They made the opposite of minimum wage laws, they made it IILLEGAL to pay above a certain amount to workers (which helped accumulate capital). They gave more rights to owners of large estates than to smaller estates. They made it illegal for workers to hire unions but allowed, many times state owned, corporations to be formed. The first multi-nationals after all were state owned companies. Actually they were many times owned by members OF the state, but none the less, state owned. No country in modern times has developed without massive involvement of the state. In capitalism, when the state has stepped away it has done even worse. I posted above the poll results in Latin America regarding state control of services and resources. Are all these instances situations where people were living in opposition to their own nature? My arguments aren't "sticking" with you because facts and history mean nothing to you, you have your little statement there about human nature and you'll be damned if you challenge anything I've said directly or back it up.
"Haiti is a disaster because they failed to take care of their environment, and reproduced like gerbils."
You are either ignorant or a liar. Yeah, that is why Haiti is in its state, too many babies. That's it. Do some research about the differences in environmental policy in Haiti vs. the Dominican Republic. Jarod Diamond talks about it in "Collapse" if you're intersted. Also do some research on the violence, the economic attacks and the subversion that has been visited on that country any time progressive change has been attempted, and that goes way back to its famous revolution. Ecological economist Herman Daly did studies on birth rates amongst rich and poor Brazilian women in the 1970's and he showed that the poor women had about four more babies on average than the rich women. As people get richer they have less children, not the other way around, for multiple reasons. If you want the article and the argument I can post it. See, I can back up what I say.
I don't know who you are, or why the hell you post here (it isn't about differences in opinion, it is about knowing what the hell you're talking about when you make the statements you do and being able to back it up. It is as if you don't think, you hear something that you like, don't question the logic and puke it out here. When someone says something you can't back up, you dismiss it, without again backing up why, and say some bland conventional logic), but read up on these issues. I would think that you post here because you believe in what you say and want to convince people of your points. You aren't going to do it with the way you are going about it, people here know too much to do anything but laugh at your nonsense. I also don't think you're paid to post this because, honestly, you aren't doing a good enough job to warrant the pay. Not saying you couldn't, it has nothing to do with intelligence, you are just saying nonsense. It is very hard to defend and articulate nonsense positions.
Your evil Venezuela is a great example. Venezuela was actually the place of the first "free market", structural adjustment, revolt in the region, in 1989. They were not revolting in opposition to their own nature, as events since across the region have shown, they opposing YOUR ideas, the ideas that failed them. As I said, all modern economies, that are successful, have massive state involvement in the economy, only a couple (if any) countries in modern times can even try to claim to have developed using your ideas in practice (and they aren't the richest and most powerful countries either). A revolt for similar reason, against the same policies, happened in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba, in Argentina in the earlier part of this decade (and now still), and many other places across the region.
There were polls at the time when this happened, over 60% of Venezuelans supported the revolt. Chavez was a part of this, he was part of a group that attempted a coup a few years later (after widespread killings and repression by the right wing government at the time). Again, according to polls (you can look this up, I can't do all the work for you) a large majority of Venezuelans supported the coup. It failed. Chavez went on TV and admitted personal fault for its failure. He also used it as a plattform to attack the IMF and its policies. Fast forward a few years and Chavez is elected by a large majority, a short time later the constitution is replaced with a far better one and the rest is history. You say that the constitutions don't mean much, which shows once again how little you know. In Venzuela there was a recall against Chavez. Remember that? Sure you do. It was only possible, it IS only possible, thanks to the new constitution. If 35% of the people want ANY politician recalled it goes up for a national vote. In Venzuela if 10% of the people want a law by the state overturned it can be put up for a national vote. By law people are guaranteed a right to healthcare, rights to the indigenous that weren't there before, rights to education, environemental rights, participatory rights, etc. How hard would it be to make that many (progressive, better, more democratic and far sighted) changes? Just erase and start over.
I'll post you two links about how this change is happening outside of government, another example where the government under Chavez is not impossing its will, but making sure the minority doesn't impose its will on the majority. Actually, the right wing in the Bolivarian movement that controls the state is trying to put the brakes on the most revolutionary measures. Chavez has had to pick the state bureaucracy (the minority) or the workers (the majority). Which did he choose? That is what the first article is about. The second is about the cooperative media in Venezuela. Most of this media is owned and controled by private power and is strongly dishonest and supportive of the types of groups that lead the coup there in 2002. Local communities are now being given more control, at the expense of these private interests, over their airwaves. Some of them were active trying to get this power before Chavez was even in office, some of them don't even speak Spanish and use the radio to educate their young people on their language and culture.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22213
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22197
People like you are always so worried about the majority squashing the minority. If that is tyranny what is forcing policies on the majority by the minority, usually at the barrel of a gun?
I don't expect you to read those articles or, even if they did, for them to affect you. At the very least it will show what nonsense people like you puke out.
He pukes and he smears''but is clearly incapable of doing anything else.
Nobody cares whther YOU buy the argument or not, as not only are you NOT HOnduran but you are not a Latin American resident of any stripe.
You are just an ignorant gringo gumming up with works with your deliberately ingenuous posts here on CD.
Take a vacation.
I am''which is why I don't have time to spend here refuting your fatuous fascist take on the world.
"If a group of Hondurans wants to change the constitution, they can work to elect Congressmen who'll vote for such changes. If they can't get organized and get the majority needed, then it's probably better not to change it."
If we in the USA can't get Obama and Congress to serve the majority over the rich corporations by working in the system (voting), what makes you think Hondurans will have any better luck in an equally (or more) classist society?
"This is what stops the majority from abusing the minority. If a Constitution can be changed by a simple majority vote (and this is the implication when you propose creating a Constitutional convention ruled by majority vote), then it's not worth having."
Ever since European arrival, it's always been the minority abusing the majority. The existing military leaders are no exception. Considering that the existing document actually calls for separation of powers and decent work hours (when reality in Honduras is a powerful executive and sweatshop labor), I don't think the right takes the Constitution any more seriously than the man they ousted when their actual power and wishes might be impeded. Any attempt by the existing government to justify their actions by the Constitution reeks of hypocrisy.
"Regarding those other countries, I'm not convinced having new Constitutions means much to them, what counts is the quality of the government running things"
I agree with you; crooks can subvert any system of laws, but the existing structure gives the elite much more leeway (when compared to the US) through the Supreme Court, which is internationally recognized as corrupt. You might as well have a more democratic system; at the least, entrenched elites can't be as brazen (or as aggressive) about subverting laws without risking revolution.
"History shows these socialist regimes evolve into autocracies which mismanage the economy and end up with a majority of poor people ruled by a small group of "noveau rich", a caste of party members and military officers who really benefit while the people eat dung."
Historically, that's when the people revolt again. But considering that under de-regulated capitalism, this is the default state (just look at Columbia or Ecuador/Argentina just a few years ago), I'd prefer the socialist infant state with open eyes and vigilance.
It sounds like the Resistance Front is well organized and determined. The six-day double march is an excellent idea. The longer the march, the larger and calmer the crowd. And a large and calm crowd can both better resist violent "police" repression AND reduce the chances of such things happening in the first place.
Let us hope that as we head toward Autumn and the scheduled national Elections in Honduras, the combination of internal people-power, external political and economic pressure, and the rightful President's presence on the border can topple the Criminal Regime. At least in time for the Elections to have some legitimacy.
It would also be nice if Zelaya would begin to de-emphisize the importance of his personal return to Office -at least if the Criminals can hold out for another month or two. Much more important is the restoration (really first creation) of Democracy in Honduras. In other words, the Consultation and/or Referendum on a new Constituent Assembly to form a new Constitution is FAR more important than Zelaya's last months or weeks in Office and his personal shepherding of this process.
For myself, I would love to see Zelaya concede his ouster ONLY in exchange for the Criminals conceding the Constituent Assembly Referendum, but I might be just dreaming.
As for the all important questions for us dwellers en El Norte: What can WE do to show solidarity with our Honduran brothers and sisters in Democracy? What can WE do to do more, what can we do to ASSIST the cause they fight and die for which is also our cause?
I see the hint of a path suggested by this quote in the article from one of the Criminals' own mouths:
--"We are channeling investments of nearly 500 million dollars from Canadian and U.S. business interests,..."---
So says the "...head of the industrialists' association, Adolfo Facussé." (Trans.= "...one of the chief Criminal Oligarchal Bastards, Adolfo Facussé.").
I say we should make it OUR goal to discover just who these "business interests" are and do what we can to stop this "channeling" to the Criminal Regime in Honduras. Just as with the Apartheid Regime in South Africa, if the State Department and the Congress won't do their job, then it is up to us Citizens to do it for them!
-matti.
I'm not sure why legitimacy of elections depends on Zelaya being in power. The key is for the Honduras government to invite outside monitors.
Damn, where is nativetongue miami when you need her?
I am in Mexico City with my nephews--and President Zelaya is also here. Yesterday he met with the spurious president of Mexico, Calderon--and today was scheduled to speak in the congress. The question is whether Calderon will convoke the Group of Rio, as Mexico currently has the chairmanship.
The golistas were on t.v. last night talking about how their project was all about holding the seawall in Latin America for the gringos against Chavez.
Dunno. But it sure looks to me this bruhaha is fun, but it's meaningless. They ARE having elections in November. So the question becomes, is it really reasonable to advocate violence to return a guy who after all was doing a pretty poor job?
I believe that all peaceful means should be exhausted to return Zelaya to his rightful place (the Presidency) in Honduras. But to paraphrase JFK, those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable.