« Hillary Meets Mel, Comes Out Swinging | neoboho's Blog | Honduras '09/Brazil '64: Is the Oligarchy Irresistible? (repost) »
Preliminary Report on Coup by Zelaya Government
Adrienne Pine, Charles Utwater and Doug Zylstra have translated the Honduran Government's Preliminary Report Regarding the Coup d'Etat. You can download the 26 page pdf from this page, or read the report's conclusions on the Quotha page.
The report is too long to post, so I encourage you to download and read it. However, I'm tempted to take parts of the report as the basis for future blogs, especially as the issues they address becomes prominent to the developing story of Honduras. Right now there is one issue that I think has been under-considered by the press and the handful of bloggers who have been bringing the news from Honduras to the Internet table.
Amnesty
Amnesty is contained in the current form of the San Jose Accord. As I understand, Zelaya is provided amnesty from prosecution for a six month period after his office is restored, and the Coup leaders would enjoy a blanket amnesty for their violations of the constitution. I would say it is a good deal for the coup leaders, but there are some interesting wrinkles. For example, the San Jose Accord does not have the power to trump several international treaties and agreements wherein Honduras agreed to prosecute crimes committed under the auspices of human rights. The two human rights investigations carried out in Honduras show a wide range of prosecutable human rights abuses carried out by the coup leaders. The San Jose Accord does not - can not - guarantee immunity from prosecution for these crimes.
Is this a fly in the ointment? I think so. I can't imagine that the coup leaders, even in light of the overblown arrogance they have shown, are not aware of their potential vulnerability - even under the amnesty offered in San Jose. To me that means they have to stay in power just to protect themselves from prosecution - no return of Zelaya period, and no compromises that would weaken in any way the existing power structure.
The "Report" cited above, however, reads like an indictment against the coup leaders. From the top, an indictment against the Honduran government itself:
And of course this is exactly the reason behind the coup d'etat, which the document addresses next:
Tiempo published a story (in Spanish) yesterday on the reaction of congress to the US State Department's announcement of the increase in sanctions against the coup government. RAJ published a story on her blog. She translates this graf from Tiempo:
The report is too long to post, so I encourage you to download and read it. However, I'm tempted to take parts of the report as the basis for future blogs, especially as the issues they address becomes prominent to the developing story of Honduras. Right now there is one issue that I think has been under-considered by the press and the handful of bloggers who have been bringing the news from Honduras to the Internet table.
Amnesty
Amnesty is contained in the current form of the San Jose Accord. As I understand, Zelaya is provided amnesty from prosecution for a six month period after his office is restored, and the Coup leaders would enjoy a blanket amnesty for their violations of the constitution. I would say it is a good deal for the coup leaders, but there are some interesting wrinkles. For example, the San Jose Accord does not have the power to trump several international treaties and agreements wherein Honduras agreed to prosecute crimes committed under the auspices of human rights. The two human rights investigations carried out in Honduras show a wide range of prosecutable human rights abuses carried out by the coup leaders. The San Jose Accord does not - can not - guarantee immunity from prosecution for these crimes.
Is this a fly in the ointment? I think so. I can't imagine that the coup leaders, even in light of the overblown arrogance they have shown, are not aware of their potential vulnerability - even under the amnesty offered in San Jose. To me that means they have to stay in power just to protect themselves from prosecution - no return of Zelaya period, and no compromises that would weaken in any way the existing power structure.
The "Report" cited above, however, reads like an indictment against the coup leaders. From the top, an indictment against the Honduran government itself:
I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. -What follows is a litany of achievments of the Zelaya government, that can be taken, in whole, as a challenge to the existing power structure described above. This is followed by an explanation of the fourth ballot box:
The Government of the Republic of Honduras, presided over by citizen José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, officially informs the Honduran people and the international community by this report of the causes and motivations which provoked the coup d'état executed by the Military on June 28th, 2009.
Honduras. An unequal society
Honduras, the third poorest economy of Latin America, is the society with the highest level of inequality on the American continent. A small group of families, almost all of Arabic origins, monopolize 90% of the national wealth.
The oligarchy has taken power over the banks, the commercial centers, the energy generating businesses, the airport concessions, telecommunications, the newspapers, radio and TV, administrators of credit, businesses relating to soccer teams, fast food, maquiladoras, and of the leadership of the political parties and some churches.
Through rigged privatizations, they have taken control of natural resources, of public services, and of financial services. Now with the coup d'état, the three Powers of the State are at their service.
The National Congress and Institutions of the State create a regimen of
privileges for the oligarchy
The National Congress, following the ascent to power of former president Flores Facussé, placed itself at the service of this small oligarchic group, creating a regime of privileges with concessions, exonerations, and tax exemptions, so as to not pay taxes and to weaken the state with an extremely low tributary charge, barely 14%.
This oligarchy financed the campaigns of the political parties, of presidential candidates, of congressmen and mayors of the major cities. They control 90% of the most powerful media, they buy their consciences, they act as owners of the National Congress and through this means they name their lawyers and employees as operators of justice and comptroller organs of the State: Magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General and Assistant Attorney, National Commissioner of Human Rights, Magistrates of the Superior Court of Auditors, Magistrates of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and Solicitor [Procurator] General of the Republic. In conclusion: everyone belongs to them and everyone obeys them.
The Military Coup D'état in Honduras is the return to fascism of the State and it has named as Chief Usurper the most discredited and repudiated politician of all of Honduran political history, Roberto Michelleti Baìn; as Ministerial Advisor, the sinister member of Squadron 3-6, accused of disappearances and tortures in the 1980s, Billy Joya Améndola.
Achievements of the Government of President Manuel ZelayaTaken on its face, these paragraphs show a government that uniquely, with regards to Honduran history, both challenged the existing power structure and began a process of redistribution of wealth and political from the small ruling elites to the general population, as we would expect in a democratic republic. The fourth ballot is a continuation of this process.
Paradoxically, the Government of President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales obtained the indices of the greatest success of all the governments established since 1980. It achieved the greatest economic growth with an index of 7% in the years 2006-2007, the greatest foreign investment, the lowest level of indebtedness, the greatest public investment, but above all the most significant and important reduction in poverty in the entire history of the Country, which constitutes, without a doubt, its greatest achievement. All this without having established or raised new taxes or tributes. Free graduation, school lunch, the Solidarity Bond, the reduction in price and the subsidy of fuel, the application of the standard of 60° for commercialization of fuel, the rescue of public enterprises ENEE and HONDUTEL, the lowering of bank interest rates, the farm technology bond, the free substitution of energy saving light bulbs, massive literacy programs, the financing of microenterprise, the ban on cutting the forest, the prohibition of open pit mining, free electrical energy for the 700,000 poorest families of the Country, the rescue of Palmerola Military Base for a civilian airport, the increase in national reserves, opposition to devaluation of the currency (lempira) relative to the dollar, joining of PETROCARIBE and ALBA, and the rise of 60% in the minimum wage to everyone in the working class, rising from $150 to $230 dollars per month; these are just a sample of the actions of the government on behalf of the national interest, particularly that of the poorest.
Proposal for Citizen Power
Our proposed politics of Citizen Power incorporated unprecedented forms of participation for Hondurans, both men and women: permanent assemblies of Citizen Power in various localities of the Country, open doors and a permanent presence in the House of Government of the social sectors, inclusion and accompaniment of organizations and personalities in the analysis and solution of national problems.
Finally, considering the existing inconsistencies and limitations in the Constitution of the Republic and the Electoral Law, which restrict the constitutional rights of the citizens with the law of the Plebiscite and Referendum, this Government approved the Law of Transparency and Access to Public Information and the Law of Citizen Participation. We proceeded toward the first large-scale exercise of massive citizen participation through the implementation of a survey, whose results would not be binding.
The survey had as its object that we express ourselves as to whether we did or did not agree to have a fourth urn [for ballots] on the day of the general election (29th of November, 2009). In the event of obtaining a majority in favor of approval, we would send to the National Congress a draft law which would govern the installation of the fourth ballot so that the people might pronounce whether or not they agreed that the next government should convene a National Constituent Assembly, as a peaceful and above all democratically-oriented exercise to give citizens effective participation in the taking of the most important decisions of the country.
And of course this is exactly the reason behind the coup d'etat, which the document addresses next:
Why the coup d'état?While hardly an "unbiased" document, at this point in my reading it became clear that this is an indictment, rather than a simple explanation of the coup. I'm going to stop now, as the following material starts naming names and crimes, which only underscores the issue of amnesty, and I believe that amnesty will be the central informing issue in the future of these events, and it will not be spoken out loud.
The "owners" of Honduras did not view benevolently a government which departed from their "control" and which was not devoted to being vigilant for their interests and perpetuate their privileges, but rather gave opportunities to the poorest and proposed a development plan for Honduras with processes and mechanisms of direct democracy. These families did not understand the message and could not contain their anger at the words of the people: "MEL IS THE ONLY PRESIDENT WHO HAS HELPED US, WHO HAS REMEMBERED US, WHO HAS DEFENDED THE POOREST."
They unleashed a dirty war, terrible and without respite against the Government of President Zelaya, with their media, their servants, their organizations, their businesses and all their resources, they invented and repeated their lies a thousand times: that President Zelaya wanted to perpetuate himself in power, that he wanted to re-elect himself, that he was handing the Country over to communism and that he wanted to commit a coup d'état, among others.
Despite their iron control of the media and their unlimited economic resources, the «owners of Honduras» could not fight with ideas, with reasons, nor by peaceful means the proposals for citizen participation. Therefore, they took the worst decision: to use brute force, violence, barbarism, and submerge Honduras in the dark night of a military coup d'état.
After the military coup d'état, directed by these owners of Honduras and their political puppets, after having exiled by force of arms the President elected by the people and his Cabinet, they have continued their war, trying to discredit all the actions taken on behalf of citizen participation in Honduran democracy.
As owners and masters of the tenured [justices] of the Supreme Court of Justice, of the Public Ministry, of the Court of Auditors, of the Electoral Court, of the Solicitor [Procurator] General of the Republic, and of the National Commission of Human Rights, they ordered the invention of charges and accusations of all kinds, which ranged from betrayal of the country to abuse of power, corruption, administrative deficiencies, etc. and, without following even the most elementary steps of due process, nor much less permit the sacred right of the accused to a defense, they have drawn up numerous arrest orders against the President and various of his Ministers.
Meanwhile the criminals and those responsible for the coup d'état continue unpunished in the Country, committing crimes against humanity against an unarmed populace that has maintained a peaceful resistance, responding only with their honor, their dignity and their blood [to demonstrate] their tireless will for the return of the constitutional order.
Tiempo published a story (in Spanish) yesterday on the reaction of congress to the US State Department's announcement of the increase in sanctions against the coup government. RAJ published a story on her blog. She translates this graf from Tiempo:
The communique left the congressional representatives stupefied. That obliged the President of the Congress, Saavedra, to call a recess to talk about it later. But they didn't have enough time to digest the ideas, because when they came back, they approved a confusing motion: "That the National Congress issue a press release to aid in galvanizing the Honduran population and so that we have a written document that allows us to talk to our electorate, to the point that we can resist for three or four more months that remain to assure ourselves that with the takeover by the authorities at the end the world will understand what it is that the Hondurans are seeking".
I think "end of the world" may be incorrect - but...
Advertisement
















"Hardly an 'unbiased' document." I appreciate the admission, boho.
So what's the game plan? If the interim government hasn't bent yet, does anyone expect it to do so before the November election? Even Hugo Chavez has conceded he doubts Zelaya will be restored.
The election date was legally set before Zelaya was deposed; it's not something the coup leaders cobbled together.
If the vote is conducted freely and fairly (and despite Zelaya's ranting, I see no evidence yet that it won't be), are you really suggesting the United States should not recognize the result? How does that advance things for the Honduran people?
Zelaya's mandate ends in January in any case. What do the coup opponents do then? Cut off all aid and trade, treat Honduras as a pariah state? For how long?
And since "restoring" Zelaya at that point would be unconstitutional, what would you and the OAS expect Honduras to do to get back in your good graces? In any conflict, you need to leave your opponent some feasible options.
Finally, just to make it clear: these are questions I really am curious to read your response to. The end game has to be a resolution in which a democratic Honduras enjoys good relations with its Latin neighbors and its big U.S. trading partner, right?
Practically, how do you see us getting from here to there?
September 5, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Admission? Come on, acanuck, I know you're not that naive. Can you think of a political position paper that is unbiased?
acanuck: "If the vote is conducted freely and fairly (and despite Zelaya's ranting, I see no evidence yet that it won't be), are you really suggesting the United States should not recognize the result? How does that advance things for the Honduran people?"
Of course such evidence exists. The reports of Inter-American Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, and the earlier report of the Independent International Human Rights Observation Mission, all of which assess voting as a human right, have concluded that the conditions for legitimate elections don't exist under the coup government. And I don't suggest that the United States should not recognize the results - the United States Government has already officially stated that it would not recognize the results.
In fact today, September 5, is the scheduled date for Honduras to finalize the printing of the November 29 ballots, so it is very significant that the State Department issued its decision to reject the election three or four days ago.
As for the Honduran people, by all indications the majority of Hondurans will boycott the elections held under coup control. What seems to be developing right now among the rank and file is a push for a plebliscite in 2010 for a completely new constitution and government.
Acanuck, think Cuba. It's been treated as a pariah state for how long now? It is not difficult to imagine that sanctions against Honduras would continue after a coup sponsored elections. As for getting back in good graces, obviously a completely new elected government would do the trick. The Plebiscite plan grows some tiny legs, yes?
At any rate, we have to wait and see. There are several indication that the coup solidarity is fractured and a lot of infighting is going on. And, this is important, the economic picture for Honduras is worsening daily - they are exhausting their national reserves, and the have no credit lines left.
September 5, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have little choice but to wait and see, so that's what we'll do.
Yes, Zelaya has called for an election boycott.
But since even his own Liberal Party has disavowed him, I don't see who's going to organize such a grassroots campaign on his behalf.
Suppose the Liberal candidate scores a thumping victory, confirmed by outside observers? And suppose that new president decrees amnesty to both Zelaya and everyone else involved on the other side? Think that might shake the U.S. and OAS positions?
Because that appears a likely outcome to me.
One odd thing about this squabble we've been having is that I'm probably as much of a leftist as you are. (I've opposed every Latin American military coup or dictatorial regime since well before Allende. Honduras doesn't fit that mold.)
Where we basically differ is that, for all Zelaya's rhetoric, I don't buy his populist shtick. Honduras no doubt needs change, but after the violent turmoil of its past, it also needs stability. And constitutionality!
Zelaya tried to emulate Chavez, but without first building the popular base that's enabled Chavez and Ortega to retain and regain power. His ham-fisted bid to change the constitution showed how far out of their league he is.
September 6, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't blame you for not being up to parr on the Honduran street, acanuck, since the press is not saying much about it. But there are a few things to consider: First, it was the electorate in Honduras who called for an election boycott, and Zelaya piped in later about it. It was the electorate who called for a new constitution, Zelaya considered that a legitimate issue and pushed it forward with public survey. If the election goes forward under coup control, the Liberal Party's candidate, Elvin Santos, has little chance of winning, since he's booded off the stage wherever he campaigns. Pepe Lobo, the National Party's man, would probably win.
But I think the most important thing to understand is that Zelaya isn't the superhero here. The press always seems to focus on a personality - that makes news entertainment,I think. As I've said before, Zelaya is a place-holder, more or less. He's got some popularity now because he represents, by default, many of the aspirations of the electorate. If he suddenly evaporated, the struggle for democracy is Honduras would continue.
And by the way, Oscar Arias of Costa Rica "changed the constitution" so he could extend his term limits. Four years ago Alvaro Uribe changed the constitution of Colombia to allow his second term, and now is changing it again to allow a third term. Zelalya critics who wrongfully accuse him of trying to extend his terms always cite ALBA member state presidents who have done this, and never others who are not members of ALBA.
September 6, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I have never accused Zelaya of trying to extend his term limits, just of trying to change the constitution by a method that is itself unconstitutional. So that's a red herring.
That said, I have great respect for those leaders who defer to their country's existing term limits, despite popular and partisan pressure to do otherwise (I'm thinking Lula da Silva).
You claim: "The electorate ... called for an election boycott" and "for a new constitution?" Are you really purporting to know the will of the entire Honduran electorate, boho? Really?
I thought that was what elections are designed to determine.
September 7, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the public poll was perfectly constitutional. If you disagree, you should explain why it was unconstitutional.
And my goodness, a petition with 600K signatures by registered voters asking for a constituent assembly is the work of the "electorate," my friend. I think you need to refresh your understanding on the meaning of the term.
And a group of voters calling for an election boycott is not subject to knowing the will of all voters.
Remember, what we are debating here is whether or not Zelaya initiated either the referendum or the boycott. My position is that he did not, and I've backed that up with some facts. You are arguing that he did, but you've provided no evidence to support that claim.
September 9, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
We would sitting in the dark about this if you didn't keep us up to date.
September 5, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink