The Honduran Coup – Call for Action
Readers:People all over the world concerned with human rights and democracy in Latin America have been fixed for nearly a month now on the military coup against the democratically elected President in Honduras. The coup has wide repercussions, not only for Honduras but also for the entire region.
For decades Latin America was plagued by democratic governments tossed out of office by military forces, events usually followed by brutal dictatorships. This coup, the first to succeed in ousting a President in decades (with the exception of the Venezuelan coup against Hugo Chavez, which lasted a few days). Returning to a coup culture in Latin America would be a huge reversal for democracy in the region.
A note here: There is a wide difference between a military coup, in which a democratically-elected President is escorted from the country at army gunpoint and presidential resignations triggered by mass protest and the collapse of public support. The latter is what happened to Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in Bolivia in 2003 and to Richard Nixon in the U.S. in 1974.
Below is a brief post by Kris Hannigan-Luther of the Democracy Center, with links to more information on the Honduran coup and what citizens across the world – and particularly in the U.S. – can do to take action.
Jim Shultz
The Honduran Coup – Call for Action
Written by Kris Hannigan-Luther
Late this week talks between Honduran ousted President, Zelaya and the de facto government in Honduras were suspended, and it appears that Zelaya is heading back to Honduras from Nicaragua overland, with plans to enter Honduras this weekend. The de facto Honduran government, headed by Roberto Micheletti, who was named president by Congress after the military coup, has promised to arrest Zelaya if he attempts to return to Honduras.
In the 27 days since the coup in Honduras, many of us have read news reports and analyses on the historical and economic context of the Honduran crisis. We have heard statements issued by the Organization of American States, by the Obama administration and by other heads of state. While we are not experts on the situation in Honduras, we feel that it is appropriate to share links to information as well as calls to action with you, our readers.
We join with our sister organizations, which call for an end to the human rights violations that are occurring in our neighboring country of Honduras.
On July 10th, the Washington Office on Latin America’s (WOLA) Executive Director, Joy Olson, testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere regarding the Crisis in Honduras.
According to Olson’s testimony: On June 28th there was a coup. The Honduran military forcibly removed democratically elected President José Manuel “Mel” Zelaya, by gunpoint from the presidential palace, and put him on a plane to Costa Rica. Read Joy Olson’s complete testimony here.
The New York Times reported on the coup in a July 28th article. Read the complete article.
While the New York Times article asserts that “…President Manuel Zelaya was ousted by the army on Sunday, capping months of tensions over his efforts to lift presidential term limits…” other analysts point out that the ousted Honduran President was not trying to lift presidential term limits. Joy Olson of WOLA testified, “…there is no concrete proof that this (lifting of term limits) was his intent, much less any guarantee that an assembly, if called, would include a clause on presidential re-election in a new constitution.”
Human Rights Violations
WOLA and other organizations have written and spoken out against on-going violations of human rights since the coup. WOLA cites a report released by the Committee of Families of the Detained and Disappeared of Honduras (COFADEH), which documents unlawful detentions, press censorship, a curfew reinstated by the government and other suspended civil liberties.
Witness for Peace’s Ben Beachy traveled to Tegucigalpa as part of an emergency commission of observers from across the hemisphere. He also highlighted human rights violations that have taken place since the June 28 coup, writing that over 1000 arbitrary arrests of civilians have taken place, as well as the censure and expulsion of nearly all independent media outlets, physical attacks and at least four deaths related to the violence. Visit the Witness for Peace website to learn about their calls to action.
In the United States, members of the House of Representatives have unveiled a new resolution condemning the coup in Honduras. House Resolution 630 was introduced by Representatives Delahunt, McGovern and Serrano. This resolution demands that President Zelaya be immediately reinstated as the legitimate Honduran President and that the Obama Administration cut off all non-humanitarian assistance to Honduras until that time.
The Latin America Working Group(LAWG) is campaigning for U.S. citizens to contact their representatives in Congress and ask them to support this resolution.
This coup demonstrates that our democracies need strengthened and respected on all sides. According to WOLA’s Joy Olson: When all was said and done, many of the actors in the play seem to have overstepped their legal authorities. In this story, there are no heroes of democracy.
posted by The Democracy Center at 11:05 AM
The Democracy Center, based in Cochabamba Bolivia and San Francisco California, works globally to advance human rights through a combination of investigation and reporting, training citizens in the art of public advocacy, and organizing international citizen campaigns. If you like the Blog, consider becoming a subscriber to The Democracy Center's free e-newsletter by sending us an email at 
28 Comments:
Heh! It's funny how blind some people are to their own imperialistic attitudes. Imperialism is when people in one country tell people in another country how to live their lives, and neither the left nor the right have a monopoly on it. Why is it any different for the right to tell the Iraqis that they will be an American-style democracy at the point of a gun than it is for the left to tell Hondurans that they will have to live with an illegal president because we say so?
How about this: Why don't we just decide not to be imperialistic altogether? Why don't we say: "We like American-style democracy. We think ours is the best and we're willing to help anyone who wants to imitate us. However, if you want to live under a different system, that's fine too."
Nah, that's too anti-imperialistic, huh? Instead we have to sit in judgment of every people, every government, and every development on the face of the planet.
Worst post ever, if you don´t mind my humble appreciation.
On the other hand, just to see some of the gray areas on the subject.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=100536§ionid=351020706
Ortega´s Panama Reloaded?
Kind of late to this one Democracy Center, no? What have you guys been doing for the last month?
For one, the president is not illegal. Ask Obama. The facts, verifiable by doing some simple research on google:
Honduran constiution prohibits re-election, and attempts to modify such article and allow re-election.
Zelaya promoted a NON-BINDING referendum asking whether Hondurans wanted a Constituent Assembly. Nothing else, nothing more. Congress would still have to convene said Assembly, and then that Assembly would still have to write a new constitution, and include re-election, and be approved by the vote of the Honduran people.
Doesn't it tell you something that military deposed the legitimate president the very day that a NON-binding referendum was taking place? Were they afraid of Zelaya, or of having the Honduran people's NON-BINDING opinion known?
For two, its the same delusional thinking that equates hundreds of years of European imperialism, followed by British imperialism, followed by USamerican imperialism, with a couple of petrocheques from Chavez and ALBA as the same thing, and which led the Honduran military to pull of this shenanigan which they will soon regret and restore Zelaya to power as shoudl be.
Jim, you neglected to mention Haiti 2004.
Zelaya deceided to pull an Iran-Contra (using outside money to get around the legislatures control of the purse strings) and make an end run around congress and the courts by having Chavez fund the printing of the ballots when he was told by the legislature he couldnt hold his "nonbinding referendum". The court, of course said no, thats unconstitutional. Then to really dig himself deep Zelaya told the military to pass out the ballots that Zelaya had stolen from customs impound. The military said no that would violate the court order.
After all that, Zelaya in accordance with the constitution was kick out by congress with approval of the courts. Also in accordance with the constitution the military executed the warrant for his arrest. Unfortunately the military then kicked him out of the country, which was not specified in the warrent, but by then Zelaya was no longer president.
FUCK THE DEMOCRACY CTR
FUCK JIM (If I see you I'll kick you in the nuts)
FUCK ALL THESE MEDIOCRE COMUNIST MEDELLER (CHAVEZ MORALES ETC)
I AM TIRED OF ALL THESE AMERICAN HIPPIES COMMING OVER WITH ALL THEIR BIASED BULLLSHIT
4:50
How democratic you must be. Are you related to the croats, goni, costas, or are you just a gringo full of hatred?
People like you are the ugly usamericans who are destroying the only planet we got.
Thank you Democracy Center for inspiring freedom, REAL democracy in the world.
Yes, Democracy from the ground up.
To all haters in the world. Unite and jump into the sea alltogether!!!
All we are saying.... is give peace a chance!!
People in Bolivia think very narrowly. They believe Honduras is like Bolivia and that the campesino unions will come to Zelaya's rescue. It is not the case, Honduras economy (like Mexico and central america) depends a lot on the U.S. The US even has a temporary immigration status for Hondurans in the U.S. This means that many people support the coup, including poor people, I wouldn't be surprised if it is the majority. Also, historically Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua they have had either democratically elected left-wing presidents like Jacobo Arbens in Guatemala or the Sandinistas in Nicaragua or left-wing guerrillas such as the FMLN in El Salvador. Honduras was the exception and it was the place from were the U.S. would defend its interests. I know it is not ethical, but it will end up like Haiti with an ousted president for good. If most Honduras don't want Zelaya, it would be a little bit like Goni's ousting that you mentioned. I don't believe it is the beginning of an era of coups in Latinamerica, but the beginning of the end of left-wing populism.
If most Hondurans didn't want Zelaya, they would have let him have his NON-BINDING election, and he would have lost by a landslide, and it would have been yesterdays news. People in Bolivia do think narrowly on some issues, however this extends to the westernized US or European educated elites (to which I also belong, duh) and I think even more so.
DV your facts are mixed in with hearsay and assumptions, for example congress only voted to remove Zelaya after he had been kidnapped already and a forged resignation letter was shown to the congressmen.
Also, due process would dictate that a trial proceed if the Supreme Court deemed it necessary, and being the president even ordering his arrest seems precipitated. Nonetheless, same as in Venezuela 2002, isn't there a vice president in Honduras? Or president of Congress, I don't know what is the legal order of succession but clearly not some random guy like Michelletti (though he is a congressman) and Carmona was in Venezuela.
The same claims of obscure legality followed by "oh well fuck it, oops they went too far but its too late to bring him back"
If this ends up like Haiti, Obama's word is shit and America (con acento) will rightfully radicalize to end the Empires influence. I think he knows this, and I think he will do the right thing.
ANonymous 3.38, your argument is very stupid and reminiscent of police states, where the state argued that the Stasi and such organizations should not concern people who were not committing any crimes. The argument is not that they should have let the people vote and decide by themselves, becasue it was NON-BINDING and that it proves that the removal of Zelaya was just an act of a fearful oligarchy against the interests of the people. You miss the point greatly. The fact is that the referendum, binding or NON-BINDING, as you like to stress for effect, was not legal. The CURRENT (got it?) Honduran constitution dictates that whoever wants to stay in power has to be immediately removed. That is what happened. It doesn't matter if the referendum was binding or otherwise. What matters is that the president was acting against the law, and was repeteadly told so by the congress and the courts. Don't commit the crime if you are not ready to do the time. Of course, as I believe you are a chavez supporter, you don't really see anything wrong in a president acting against his own constitution, right?
Instead of criticizing, DV, i think it is you who should check the facts and not be so blatantly biased. Had this happened against a right-of-centre government, you would be celebrating the rise of the people against a corrupt minority and not even thinking about defending democracy. Same as Jim.
I am a Chavez sympathizer, although I dislike some aspects of his influence within Bolivia, his antics I find hilarious and more so the crazy that he drives his opposition en todo nuestro continente.
I think YOU are missing the point, that what is implied in the coup-supporters rhetoric, that Zelaya was seeking re-election, is at best a stretch. This is not evident from the fact that he asked for a constituent assembly or a referendum. It just isn't.
See, the ONLY reason (I'm glad you like my capitals, I think they are useful sometimes) the referendum was deemed illegal, is because SUPPOSEDLY, this non-binding referendum would mean Zelaya stays in power.
Do you see how there is a leap of faith there, jumping to a conclusion that really does not correspond? Again, the referendum was more akin to an opinion poll. If it had been allowed, and if it had been approved, Congress would still have to call for the contituent assembly, perhaps for another BINDING referendum, and then the Constitution would be drafted.
So allegedly, the coup-mongers had a crystal ball that told them all these IFs would come true, and also, the constitution would be written to allow re-election, and then would be approved.
So based on their prediction of the future, based on four or five ASSUMED outcomes, they said it was illegal. Thats the first part.
The second part, where they kidnapped the President and sent him out of the country, is simply unjustifiable, as I see you didn't try very hard to do anyway.
What multimillionaire power hungry cowboy Zelaya illegally tried to do would be analogous to an Obama or Bush demanding a third term, illegally acquiring ballots to force a plebiscite, ignoring a Congressional conviction of impeachment, and a Supreme Court edict of unconstitutionality, only to be arrested by the Joint Chiefs and escorted out of the country. Sounds scary and unthinkable, eh?
Zelaya deserved to be constitutionally removed. Case closed.
Not really. Ok this really is not so hard to follow, you just need to observe the facts for yourself, and not believe what any of the usual media and think-tank goons are saying, because their claims are not fact based.
I thought of a a good example. There is this South Park episode, where everyone's underpants are mysteriously dissapearing. Cartman, I think it is, stays up late one night, only to find and army of elves/dwarves parading through his living room, stealing his underpants.
Upon questioning, the little people declare their plan for obtaining unthinkable riches and splendor:
Step 1: Collect underpants
Step 3: Become unthinkably rich!!!
What is step 2? You ask, and Cartman asks, however none of the dwarves are able to respond, each asking the next "What is step 2?" and ending up in a cacophony of dwarves perplexed by their own master plan.
In this case, the analogy is as follows:
Step 1: Propose a non-binding referendum asking whether or not Hondurans want a Constituent Assembly. No mention of re-election. No request for re-election or a term extension. A simple question, do you want a Constituent Assembly?
Step 3: Zelaya is kidnapped by the military based on a Supreme Court order which, in reality, if you actually read the documents and not the hype, did not even ask explicitly for his arrest, only recommended it, and of course you would imagine that the Constitutional President would not be arrested at 4 am by military goons, and much less taken out of the country.
Do you see my point, anons 5:05 et al? Where is step 2?
The Honduran ambassador in U.S. now represents the legitimate government. Coup-supporters visas are being revoked. hellz yea! go Obama, go Obama... Obama!
FUCK THE DEMOCRACY CTR.
I AM NOT A GRINGO, I AM A BOLIVIAN WHO HATES ALL THESE OUTSIDERS WHO HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT IS TO SEE PEOPLE DESTROY YOUR COUNTRY. I AM 100% BOLIVIAN AND LIVE IN BOLIVIA SO I CAN SEE EVERY DAY HOW EVERYONE IS PRODUCING LESS AND SELLING LESS THANKS TO THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SOLUTION, I SEE HOW MASISTAS ARE BUYING HOUSES IN EL BOSQUE AND OTHER EXPENSIVE PRIVATE NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS GOVT IS LIKE THE PREVIOUS SAME SHIT DIFERENT BUCKET. HONDURAS IS DIVIDED LIKE BOLIVIA THE ONLY DIFRENCE IS THAT ALL THE ZELAYA ASSHOLES LIKE THE EVO ASSHOLE ARE GETTING MORE MEDIA COVERAGE. THANKS FOR ALL THE GREAT HELP JIM YOURE A REALL DUMBASS AND WHEN I SEE YOU ILL KICK YOU IN THE NUTS.
Anon 5.05 - you really didn't get my point, right? Could you please comment on the analogy that your argument is basically the same as the people not having to be worried about a Stasi-like police if they are law-abiding?
You really did not say anything in your post that woould make anyone revisit your argument. You just repeated it with other words.
Please answer:
1. Why should Hondurans have to go through with something that is ILLEGAL? It doesn't matter that in this case we are talking about a refendendum. It might have been the killing of a community, the rape of underage children or the closure of an independent newspaper. The question is: if the law says something is illegal, and someone wants to do it, why should they be able to do it?
Again, DON'T focus on this specific case - if it was non-binding, why didn't the government just go for a survey? -, let's suppose we are talking about the Santa Cruz governor making a non-binding referendum on whether Crucenhos want to get independent from Bolivia. Bet your answer would change.
2. Would you be protesting if a right-wing president had been ousted by Zelaya? Hypothetical, I know, but just humour me.
And also, the analogy of the underpant gnomes, as i see it, wouold be Zelaya's plan:
Step 1: Make up a referendum
Step 3: Become King of Honduras.
Step 2 was very uncertain for a politician with less that 30% of supporters. Anyhoo, that wouldn't have mattered, as the ballots were printed in Venezuela....
So, Anon 5.05 & 3.38. Please reply, but without repeating yet again the same argument.
AH, btw, Anon 10.18 - nobody who truly believes in Democracy and Freedom likes Jim and his manipulating ways. But an all-cap insulting post threatening violence has no place here, I think. It can be frustrating to deal with people who still think of Che as a hero, and that do not mention any of Evo's transgretions against democracy, because they clearly have an agenda, but this is a place for ideas. Arguments and facts are much more effective unmasking this MAS-agent that swearing and insulting.
Gnomes!! That was it. Yes my South Park analogy was the same argument, simplified. Ok here's the thing, you continue to think that calling a non-binding referendum was in itself illegal.
The point, which I realize I have failed to make clear, is the following:
Step 1: propose non-binding referendum on constituent assembly
Step 2a: if Yes wins, in six months, hold a new, binding referendum , in parallel to the Presidential elections. this referendum would determine whether the new government would have the mandate to call the constituent assembly. a new president, not Zelaya becuase he could not run, would be in charge.
Step 2b: if No wins, still hold presidential elections in six months as scheduled, a new President would still take office, because Zelaya would not be a candidate, because he had no intention for re-election, as it is against their current CPE.
It really IS that simple, and the re-election/illegality claims really are such straw men. Of course, Zelaya's wife was considered as a prime candidate to replace her husband in the next election, which is still probable now, and further proof that re-election was not on the agenda, just a constituent assembly. not that I personally like the dynastic aspects of that plan, but it shows that they were working around the Constitutional ban, not against it.
On Santa Cruz, they did hold a non-binding referendum last May 4th, and I have no problems with that except that they tried to claim it was binding, and was legal, and many people died as a result of that.
Nonetheless, the victory of "autonomy" in that referendum (which used our old padron electoral, mind you, the one which now the right gets all ansy about) led to autonomias being taken into account in the new CPE, under the constitution.
Likewise, the Honduran referendum which never was, could have led to a new and improved constitution for them.
To your other question, my priorities are, in that order, life, justice, and equality. Any government, right or left, which violates them becomes illegitimate. So no, I did not protest when Goni was forced to resign (is there any other good example) because he violated the lives of so many innocents.
As much as I supported the goals of the left in the protests of Oct. 2003, I did not support their methods, and as Carlos Mesa, my turning point against the legitimatley constituted government was when they ordered the shooting of our own people.
Anon 10:18
I live in el Bosque too anon, what's wrong? upset you got a few MASistas as neighbors =D
You're probably that tool who speeds into the complex in that black convertible.
I guess writing in full caps means this is serious business =P
You're not gonna do anything to anyone tough guy, although I mostly disagree with Jim, I'd much prefer him to a frustrated nasty little person like you.
Y si te sientes bien macho, deja tu nombre con uno de los chicos en la entrada y nos entendemos cara a cara cuando quieras.
Oye Bolas no vivo en el bosque, y si me llega al huevo que unos masistas Corruptos, NFRistas MNR ADN MIR ETC. corruptos o cualquier tipo de corrupto/NArco/Maleante este viviendo a costa de los impuestos que yo y mi familia pagamos. A diferencia de todos estos maleantes yo si soy 100% honesto y deasfortunadamente no puedo publicar mi nombre por las persecusiones que hay en este pais. Pero ya la frustracion de nadar contra la marea constantemente y ser uno de los pocos honestos que declara el 100% de sus impuestos y hace todo en el marco de la ley llego a un limite y ahora que se vayan a la puta todos estos maleantes y gringos mete calda.
Anon 9:52AM holds itself out as being "100%" honest. Such virtue.
Yet further above it threatens Jim with physical harm, apparently for holding different ideas (for example: Jim is nonviolent and when his opinion differs with others, he debates people not assaults them) That anon hides in anonymity and uses it as shield for its misconduct because of its fear of the "persecusiones". Duhh. If you threaten another then you might get prosecuted.
Anon 10.27... the problem is that the referendum is itself illegal and, by having Chavez as a mentor, empirical proof that Zelaya is indeed tryingto stay in power. What was wrong with trying to pull a Kirchner and just put his wife up for elections? Well, that wouldn't work, would it? Zelaya wanted to have the "people's mandate" to force the "oligarchs" to accept a new candidacy from him. It didn't work. If he was truly not interested in re-election or staying in power, his gnomes analogy would be
1. Propose a refendendum
2a. Legislative and judiciary accept - he goes through with it.
2b. Legislative and judiciary do not accept - his wife runs for office and he stays silent
Why was the decision of the judiciary so hard to accept for Zelaya? Why did he want to force the armed forces to go through with it? I think it is naive to think that it was as simple as you make it - Chavez is behind this all and he wants to have an ally perpetually in power. The refenderum/new constitution is exactly what he did and what Evo and Correa were instructed to do. You can see a pattern, right?
Anyway, i still hold that the refendum itself is illegal and enough reason for the legislative and judiciary to oust Zelaya legally.
On different topic... life, justice, equality. Well, for me it is life, freedom and justice. Interesting thing, but the key difference is between equality vs. liberty. I do believe that there is a trade-off between them. Discuss!
There cant be a complete freedom or complete equality because with complete equality we would have to live in a comunist country where every one gets the same, and complete freedom could let anyone do anything because they felt like it. Everything has a balance something that there isnt in Bolivia and its not going to happen anytime soon. The new govt wants revenger and the old govts wanted personal gain screwing over most of us (Bolivians). All I know right now is that we havent reached rock bottom of this downward spiral and we're all going to have to go through some tough times in the near future before we can see better days. If evo wins or loses the shit will hit the fan. So hold on for a crazy ride if you live here. Bolas cuando quieras me gustaria sentar a discutir como todo se va ir a la mierda a mi no me gusta la idea pero lo veo inevitable
I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am. ~Joseph Baretti
It is clear the use of the word democracy center by the author is strictly ironic.
I'll take liberty over equality anytime, anywhere. Equality is too boring.
Zelaya sucks
Bolivia is a Latin-American country. We Bolivians, as a special case of Latin-Americans, could understand and talk to every Spanish speaker from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and off course from Spain. The point is not about politics, it is rather about the cultural/ethnical difference. With the utmost respect, all the Indo-Americans, all of them, have the right to live at the best they understand and to choose the form of their own state and government. Likewise, all the Latin-American Bolivians, do also have the right to live the best way we can. The European Union as well as USA, who recognized Kosovo, Croatia and Slovenia, should recognize the New Bolivia. Along the XX century European maps have changed recurrently, and not always by means of violence. The best example for our case is Czechoslovakia. Therefore the best solution for our country should be a partition, to the East the Latin-American Bolivia, and to the West the ancestral Bolivia. Hopefully our Milosevic/Morales, does not go further with the ethnic cleansing, as for us there would not came any NATO to save us, as Europe and USA only see the nice little Indian that wants the best for his people, but they don’t see the tyrant that massacres and harass those he and his villainous Grand Vizir calls oligarchs, and are simply Latin-American Bolivians.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home