Extending term limits to allow Presidents to stand for more than one or two terms is not unconstitutional nor dictatorship nor undemocratic if it’s done democratically – whether it’s Chavez in Venezuela, Zelaya in Honduras or Kirchner in Argentina

It's ridiculous that amending a constitution by a democratic process is presented as unconstitutional by the right in Latin America and by people and governments in Europe and the US when commenting on Latin America.

They've done this with President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, who held elections for a Constituent Assembly which then drafted a new constitution and voted to approve it.

They did it with President Zelaya in Honduras, who was overthrown in a military coup after he tried to hold a referendum on whether to elect a constituent assembly to amend the constitution to let Presidents serve a second term if re-elected. Zelaya’s plan did not even allow for him to stand in the upcoming elections, as the referendum results would only be known after them. This was to revise a constitution which was written when military death squads were still massacring people in the 80s - and to allow Presidents to have a second term in office – the existing constitution limiting it to one term. Polls showed 55% of Hondurans supported it.

In a supposed move to “defend the constitution” members of the Honduran congress and military violated it a dozen times over by a military coup against the elected President that also involved jailing people without trial, torturing them and murdering them.

Now President Fernandez Kirchner’s proposals to amend the constitution to allow Presidents to stand for a third term in Argentina are being labelled “unconstitutional” and “dictatorship” too (1).

If it wasn't for the First Amendment to the US constitution there would be no right to freedom of speech in the US. No-one said it or any other amendment to the constitution was “unconstitutional” or a move towards dictatorship.

British and Australian Prime Ministers can be elected for any number of terms - yet no-one called Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair would-be dictators when they stood for their third terms as heads of government.

In the US the constitution was only amended in 1951 to restrict Presidents to two terms after Franklin D Roosevelt won four elections in a row , because he'd angered the wealthiest and the big banks and firms with the New Deal policies that actually benefited the majority of the population and so reduced bank and big company profits. There’s an obvious parallel with Chavez there.

Some Republican members of congress even proposed scrapping the term limit in the US during Reagan’s second term as President to allow him to run for a third.

(1) = guardian.co.uk 06 Nov 2012 ‘Fernández de Kirchner reforms spark Argentina protests’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/06/fernandez-de-kirchner-reforms-protest

Power, wealth, judges, rights, Giggs, misogyny, Murdoch and Goodwin

The media and lawyers specialising in media law are showing great ingenuity in trying to present their reporting of sex gossip stories as issues of high principle. First there was ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of the press’, now a lawyer writing in the Sunday Herald claims it’s a feminist fight against misogynist judges.

You may think that women being raped and murdered at the rate of one a day in Honduras, while the police refuse to do anything about it, is a more serious issue and that the papers should campaign against that instead. You might have thought that 420,000 women a year being raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo in a civil war that the big powers allow to continue because big firms based in their countries profit from it would be bigger news, if women’s rights were the issue. Unarmed women, men and children are all being shot down by tanks and snipers in Syria and Yemen (over 1,100 killed in Syria so far and over 150 in Yemen, thousands wounded).

The real outrage though, the most terrible oppression of all, is apparently that oppressive misogynist judges in the UK have tried to prevent newspapers and TV stations reporting on who a bank manager who is unpopular for completely unconnected reasons slept with. Even worse, these monsters went on to try to prevent them reporting a second earth shattering atrocity – footballer Ryan Giggs had consensual sex with reality TV star Imogen Thomas. Worst of all, as lawyer Paul March points out, is that Thomas was initially prevented from ‘commoditising’ the affair.

This is an interesting word to use though because it gets down to the real issue. These evil, evil judges were trying to stop newspapers, television stations and lawyers from making money by revealing the details of other peoples’ private lives –and that’s what it’s all about – money, profits, not principles. Rupert Murdoch and other newspaper owners having the right to spy on other peoples’ private lives (e.g by phone hacking and paying people ridiculous amounts of money for sordid details) in order to make himself wealthier and more politically influential is not freedom of speech. It’s not standing up to the powerful and wealthy either – it’s them throwing their weight around to send the message that no courts, laws or legal systems are going to stand in the way of them getting even richer by any means they feel like.

Now to be fair the Sunday Herald is way above the Murdoch press. In fact the Sunday Herald is mostly an excellent paper that doesn’t get involved in the fear and hate mongering, but it and the rest of the broadsheets and TV news stations seem to be moving towards the tabloids reporting priorities because they want a share of the sex gossip market.

The Sunday Herald even ‘commoditised’ the thing further (in a very minor way) by selling limited edition t-shirts of their ground breaking front cover that broke the startling news that some people have affairs with celebrities and sell their stories to newspapers.

Look at the damage it does to peoples’ families when they have affairs, most of the media say, as if plastering it all over the headlines of every newspaper and TV news bulletin for a week will make it so much better for them. Ryan Giggs’ wife has asked the reporters to f*** right off and doesn’t want the media to cover it, but the papers’ attitude seems to be - never mind her, there are bigger principles involved.

Is trade with China benefiting the majority of Chinese people?

Or is it an unintended effect of the "one child" policy? Or a combination of the two?

and will this just lead to production being moved to countries with cheaper, more repressed work-forces if we don't change our trade policies?

And can we get a balance between liberal trade, socialist protections and environmental issues that will affect us all?

Migrant workers in China - have they and the majority of Chinese people begun to benefit from trade with China - and if so is it only or partly because of the 'One Child' policy?

In the past i’ve claimed that trading with China was benefitting neither the majority of Chinese people nor the majority of people in ‘developed’ countries like those of the EU.

It seems I’ve been proven at least partly wrong, though only partly, since this only seems to be the case in Southern China so far - and because the causes may be as much or more the 'one child policy' and jobs created temporarily by the Chinese government- as much as trade. So far there's no sign of greater democracy, an end to the torture, or an end to the jailing of dissidents or execution without fair trial in China. As some of my relatives pointed out to me wages in parts of Southern China are increasing, working hours have come down to something similar to most EU countries and factories now have a shortage of workers though. 

BBC World Service reports confirm this. Some workers laid off during the credit crisis or who went home for the long Chinese New Year holiday never returned to the factories in the cities, but set up their own small businesses instead – and some of them are making much better wages than they were in the factories. However in much of China unemployment remains high and wages remain low - and many of the jobs created by the Chinese government are temporary and many be ended once the effects of the credit crisis end.

The shortage of workers is likely to lead to more increases in wages and better working conditions to try to attract workers back though - and each generation of workers is better educated and demands better wages.

This has happened despite the lack of democracy in China, despite the lack of trade unions independent of the governing party and despite some terrible exploitation of workers in some factories in the past.

My relatives run their own companies and were initially forced to turn to Chinese firms as suppliers in order to compete with other firms that had already done so, but visited their suppliers’ factories and demanded changes or else switched to different suppliers if workers were badly treated. Their actions may well be one of the driving forces behind improvements in wages, hours and working conditions (if others have done the same – either for moral reasons or to avoid losing business to those who can show they only use suppliers who treat employees well), with increased demand and migrant workers starting their own small businesses back in their home villages (with the Chinese government giving new small businesses three years without taxes to become established) probably being another.

This is all great news and the opposite of what I’d expected – and brings hope that democratisation may follow from this, though i still think EU governments and the US should be making new trade deals with the Chinese government conditional on allowing independent trade unions, allowing opposition parties, independent candidates and free speech and on an end to the practice of sending dissidents and trade unionists to jail, lunatic asylums or ‘re-education centres’.

However it also seems to be at least partly due to China’s one child policy leading to economic growth and demand for workers exceeding population growth – the opposite of the situation in most ‘developing’ countries where lack of welfare payments for the ill and unemployed and high infant mortality rates caused by hunger, poverty and lack of clean water and health care lead to most couples having lots of children in the hope that some will survive and in order to support them when they are ill or old. The one child policy is a success in that sense, but has involved some extreme brutality, with many forced abortions and even killings of babies after birth – and some opponents of the policy being jailed or sent for ‘re-education’ to lunatic asylums.

The question is whether China’s improvements in wages and working conditions are an exception to the rule caused by it’s unique one child policy or an example of a general pattern of the majority benefiting from more trade, or whether it’s some combination of the two.

(I can’t claim any personal moral high-ground here as, while i do buy often buy fair-trade tea and bananas, i’ve also bought lots of things on ebay without having any idea where they were made or what wages and working conditions were like for the people who made them – and some arrived with ‘Made in China’ stamped on them)

Nor is everyone in China living well as a result of economic growth – the BBC also reported on 10 migrant workers living in a public toilet – and large numbers of peasants have been forced off their land with minimal compensation and no choice to make way for property developers building houses for sale to those who have benefited. A 2007 property law change did not affect land ownership, giving peasant farmers little legal redress. This suggests that at least some migrant workers are still suffering as the ‘under-class’ Amnesty International described in a 2007 report (and shortages of workers had already begun in 2006)

So far there is no evidence of democratisation nor of any slowing in the jailing, torture and execution of dissidents or Tibetan or Uighur separatists in China. Executions also remain common, often after unfair trials and with confessions extracted by torture.

The other question is whether the improvements in wages and conditions in China will continue, expand to benefit the whole population and gradually improve standards of living and bring democracy worldwide (as classical liberal theory would predict) or whether the largest firms will now move production to places like Nicaragua, Thailand, Haiti and Honduras where US-backed military coups (with civilian fronts for public relations reasons) have crushed previous democratically elected governments’ attempts to improve wages and conditions for the majority (as socialist theories would predict). Some might argue that this is part of the process of levelling up involved in international trade, but in fact wages in these countries have fallen massively due to repeated military coups and US sanctions and conditions on aid. This supports the socialist argument that ‘developed’ governments are operating a policy of backing coups and dictatorships and using their aid and trade deals to create new pools of cheap labour.

The BBC’s News 24 has had some lamentable TV news reporting on Thailand, with pro-democracy protesters giving blood and then pouring it in front of the parliament building as a protest at the military coup which used ‘constitutional measures’ to replace the elected government, followed by the killing and jailing of protesters reduced to ‘what a bizarre way to protest’ by one BBC anchor, though at least the report did mention an alliance between the wealthy and the military and that most of the protesters were from the poorer majority. The BBC News website is better, but doesn’t mention that the judgements that Thaksin Shinawatra’s government had committed electoral fraud and acted unconstitutionally were made by a Supreme Court purged and reconstituted by the military junta, under a new constitution written up by a majority of appointees of the military junta, which also allowed elected MPs to switch party – allowing the new government to co-opt some members of Shinawatra’s party. The new constitution gave immunity from prosecution to everyone involved in the coup – and the new government has extended that immunity to cover security forces involved in torture and extra-judicial killings through executive decrees.

(Shinawatra had declared the power to rule by decree in late 2005. I don’t know nearly enough about Thailand to know whether this was due to political violence and coup attempts by his opponents, or if it was the main cause of the coup. What is certain is that Shinawatra was democratically elected – and that the new government has never been democratically elected but largely installed by the military, just as the new constitution was installed by the military – and that both Shinawatra’s and Abhisit Vejjajiva’s supporters have beaten, shot and sometimes killed one another’s supporters and police and soldiers – and equally that police and soldiers have killed some of them)

Migrant workers and asylum seekers from Thailand have been beaten, deported and killed under Shinawatra, Abhisit and the Thai military – another parallel with China where, until the recent shortage of them, Chinese migrant workers were frequently jailed for ‘vagrancy’. People who have fled the much worse oppression and hunger in North Korea also continue to be refused asylum and deported by the Chinese government (much like many genuine asylum seekers to the UK). The widespread belief in all countries is that deporting as many asylum seekers as possible as ‘illegal’ and ‘fraudulent’ will help avoid citizens being put out of work by them. In reality it allows the most unscrupulous employers to employ people made ‘illegal’ without having committed any real crime – and to pay them below the minimum wage, because if they go to the authorities to complain they will be deported. In the unlikely event that all immigration (by asylum seekers and migrant workers) was made illegal production would simply move to where the cheap labour was. The only way to avoid that would be protectionism or else improving the wages of the poorest abroad by making future trade deals conditional on improvements in their wages, democratisation etc,

Given the fact that i seem to eventually have been proved at least partly wrong on China at least in terms of wages and working conditions for a large minority – and possibly the majority - i don’t know the answer - though i suspect most Chinese would have suffered less and benefited sooner from trade treaties with more conditions attached (and still could) -but it would be as wrong to claim that free trade always benefits everyone (as one of my former lecturers used to claim – in what he would have called a ‘crude analysis’ had anyone else made such a sweeping statement) as it would be to claim that trade and investment are always harmful.

Certainly Haitians have not benefited from free trade, with falling wages and increasing poverty, hunger and starvation since the 1980s. Most Haitians don’t even get the pitiful minimum wage set by the government. Though public pressure in the EU and US has led those countries’ governments to offer to cancel Haiti’s debt you can be sure that these governments will still try to make debt forgiveness conditional on more ‘free market reforms’ and more privatisation of the few public services and nationalised industries still existing there. The US and EU governments frequently preach free trade to the poorest countries in the world, demanding they open their markets to exports from the US and EU. This is never reciprocated by the US or EU allowing imports from those countries into their own without any trade barriers – and it’s arguable that if it was it might well bring the majority down to the level of the poorest rather than level Haitians or Africans up to European levels.

The flood of first world imports has been most damaging to farmers in ‘developing’ countries, whose own government subsidies and protections from foreign imports have been eliminated due to ‘first world’ governments’ pressure, while the ‘first world’ continues to subsidise it’s farmers – with large scale ‘agri-businesses’ getting far more in subsidies than small scale farmers – and so subsidised first world food exports to these countries put many small farmers out of business. This, combined with pressure to grow cash crops for exports, has turned countries like Haiti from being self-sufficient in food to being reliant on first world imports, which much of their population can’t afford to buy. Increasing poverty and hunger is the result. (People in Malawi also starved due to IMF imposed policies in 2002, as did people in Argentina, a ‘Middle Income’ country, after World Bank and IMF imposed ‘reforms’, which the country only escaped due to the Iraq war increasing the price of oil and allowing Venezuela under Chavez to bail Argentina out)

It’s happened to some extent in China too, due to property developers and corrupt Communist party officials hiring thugs to kill peasant farmers or drive them off their land, the compulsory purchase of peasants’ land at a fraction of it’s actual value and the pollution of soil and water supplies by a poorly regulated industrial revolution. As a result China, while having considerably more bargaining power than small countries like Haiti, is having to import food from Latin America. This in turn leads to rain forests being cut down to grow soya beans, just as they have been for decades to grow

Nor is the process as simple as countries being levelled up to the point that everyone is comfortably off. In the US during the credit crisis surveys showed that % of people had missed meals regularly – and in some cases their children missed meals too, which would have an impact on the development of their minds and bodies as adults. Many millions have been homeless and living in tents. These kind of facts suggest the socialist argument that free trade, if unregulated and if not combined with a strong welfare state and public services, could level the majority down while benefiting only a minority.

There are certainly lots of possible benefits to free trade for the majority – as China now seems to be showing – but it can’t be assumed that these are guaranteed without a balance between free trade and regulation; between welfare, public services and profit; and between profit and environmental costs. While we are still using petrol, oil and diesel as our main fuels large scale trade also has environmental impacts which could lead to many millions losing enough water or food to survive, to them being made refugees by these shortages or by floods and sea level rises. Bio-fuels have been shown to be a poor solution to this in practice – many create more CO2 and other pollution in producing them than is saved by using them as fuel – and growing plants for bio-fuel rather than food has increased the price of food, leading to more hunger and starvation for the poorest (and also more global warming as rain forests are cleared to make money from exporting bio-fuels). (Of course without a policy to reduce the birth rate this food shortage might be much worse, though tax breaks for having less children would be a lot less brutal than forced abortions).

That’s why i believe that future trade deals between governments should include many conditions going beyond reciprocal access to markets.

The results are not determined just by letting companies ‘get on with it’, nor can we blame individual company managers for the system they operate in, just as it’s foolish to think that different bank managers would behave better if left in a deregulated financial market that punishes social responsibility and rewards short-term profit. Governments may have been lobbied by some of these companies, but governments are under no obligation to cave in to the worst companies and grant total de-regulation that allows the least responsible managers to be rewarded for their selfishness, while the most responsible are punished for not minimising costs at all costs. As my relatives have shown in their business dealings in China it is possible to behave morally and have concern for workers even in a relatively deregulated market, but it would be a lot easier and commoner in a market which was better regulated.

Sources by subject:

Migrant workers in China and the labour shortage

BBC News 26 Mar 2010 ‘Why migrant workers are shunning China's factories’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8586672.stm

BBC News 22 Feb 2010 ‘China's Pearl River manufacturing hub 'lacks workers'’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8527621.stm

BBC News 02 Feb 2010 ‘Chinese migrant workers live in toilet’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8493743.stm

BBC News 08 Sep 2009 ‘China's workers return to cities’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8244599.stm

Guardian 24 Jan 2008 ‘Beijing to evict 'undesirables' before Games’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2245620,00.html

BBC News 01 Mar 2007 ‘China 'facing migrant underclass'’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6404977.stm

Amnesty International 01 Mar 2007 ‘China's growing underclass’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/chinas-growing-underclass-20070301

Forced abortions and infanticide in China

Sunday Times 12 Dec 2004 ‘Chinese abortion outcry saves life of prisoner’, https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1399900,00.html

Sunday Times 18 Sep 2005 ‘China shamed by forced abortions’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article567921.ece

Guardian 03 Feb 2006 ‘Under house arrest: blind activist who exposed forced abortions’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/03/china.jonathanwatts

Guardian 25 Aug 2006 ‘China jails human rights campaigner’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/25/china.jonathanwatts

Independent 8 Jan 2008 ‘China expels 500 from party over illegal births’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-expels-500-from-party-over-illegal-births-768806.html

Times 15 Apr 2009 ‘Women rebel over forced abortions - Anger at the regime's extreme birth control regime is growing’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5733835.ece

Times 12 Jan 2010 ‘One-child policy condemns 24m bachelors to life without a wife’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6983716.ece

Peasant farmers forced off land by property developers and Chinese government

Guardian 4 Apr 2007 ‘Chinese couple bow to the bulldozers’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2049377,00.html

Guardian 12 April 2005 ‘Chinese village protest turns into riot of thousands’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1457243,00.html

Washington Post 05 Oct 2004 ‘China's Land Grabs Raise Specter of Popular Unrest’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6968-2004Oct4?language=printer

Asia Times 20 Mar 2007 ‘Property law denies farmers the good earth’, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IC20Ad01.html

Christian Science Monitor 21 Mar 2007 ‘China's great leap forward on property’, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0315/p01s04-woap.html

BBC News 2 Aug 2005 ‘China faces growing land disputes’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4728025.stm

General human rights abuses, torture etc in China

Guardian 09 Dec 2008 ‘Chinese petitioners forced into mental asylums, claims report’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/09/china-human-rights-asylums

Guardian 24 Jan 2008 ‘Beijing to evict 'undesirables' before Games’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2245620,00.html

Amnesty International 10 Nov 2009 ‘Hasty executions in China highlight unfair Xinjiang trials’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/hasty-executions-china-highlight-unfair-xinjiang-trials-20091110

Channel 4 (UK) Dispatches 31 Mar 2008 ‘Undercover in Tibet’, http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-20/episode-1

Times 02 Apr 2009 ‘Chinese teenagers die in jail from routine police torture’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6018439.ece

Times 26 Dec 2009 ‘International outcry after Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo sentenced to 11 years’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6967856.ece

Times 21 Jan 2010 ‘Chinese democracy leader Zhou Yongjun jailed for fraud’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6994862.ece

Amnesty International World Report 2009 – country report – China, http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/china , (see http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/china for press releases by date)

Human Rights Watch World Report 2010 – China, http://www.hrw.org/en/node/87491

Food shortages and hunger caused by ‘free trade’ policies imposed by ‘developed’ countries

Guardian 25 Nov 2002 ‘Child hunger deaths shock Argentina’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/25/famine.argentina

Guardian 29 Oct 2002 ‘IMF policies 'led to Malawi famine'’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/oct/29/3

Peter Hallward (2007) ‘Damming the Flood : Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment’, Verso, London, 2007

Thailand

BBC 20 Sep 2006 ‘Thai PM deposed in military coup’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5361512.stm

BBC News 16 Mar 2010 ‘Thai red-shirts splash blood in anti-government protest’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8569483.stm

BBC News 17 Mar 2010 ‘Profile: Abhisit Vejjajiva’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7780309.stm

Wikipedia - 2006 Thai coup d'état, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Thai_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Wikipedia - 2008–2009 Thai political crisis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Thai_political_crisis

Wikipedia - 2007 Constitution of Thailand, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_constitution_of_Thailand#Prime_Minister

Amnesty International 13 Jan 2009 ‘Thailand: Torture in the southern counter-insurgency’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA39/001/2009/en

Human Rights Watch 4 Aug 2005 ‘Letter to Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra - Emergency Decree Violates Thai Constitution and Laws’

, http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2005/08/04/thaila11592_txt.htm

Human Rights Watch world report 2010 (covering 2009) – Thailand, http://www.hrw.org/en/node/87403

HRW 15 Apr 2009 ‘Thailand: End of Protests Is Time for Accountability’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/15/thailand-end-protests-time-accountability

HRW 20 Jul 2009 ‘Letter to Thai PM Vejjajiva on the Situation in Burma’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/20/letter-thai-pm-vejjajiva-situation-burma

HRW 20 Jan 2010 ‘Thailand: Serious Backsliding on Human Rights’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/20/thailand-serious-backsliding-human-rights

HRW 23 Feb 2010 ‘Thailand: Migrant Workers Face Killings, Extortion, Labor Rights Abuses’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/22/thailand-migrant-workers-face-killings-extortion-labor-rights-abuses

Bio-fuels and industrial and agricultural pollution as causes of food shortages, deforestation and climate change

guardian.co.uk 23 Feb 2010 ‘China's soil deterioration may become growing food crisis, adviser claims’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/23/china-soil-deterioration-food-supply

guardian.co.uk 09 Feb 2010‘Chinese farms cause more pollution than factories, says official survey’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/china-farms-pollution

Guardian 20 May 2005 ‘Rainforest loss shocks Brazil’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/may/20/brazil.environment

Guardian 28 May 2004 ‘Lula seals deal to feed China's booming cities’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/28/china.brazil

Guardian 10 Jan 2010 ‘China becomes world's biggest exporter’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/10/china-tops-germany-exports (2nd sentence of 6th paragraph reads ‘Soya bean imports hit a record 4.78m tonnes in the month, with a surge in supplies from the United States and Brazil.’)

Institute of Science in Society 11/12/06 ‘Biofuels: Biodevastation, Hunger & False Carbon Credits’, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiofuelsBiodevastationHunger.php

Reuters 05 Mar 2010 ‘EU drafts warn of biofuels' link to hunger’, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62420Y20100305

WFP Crisis Page: High Food Prices, http://one.wfp.org/english/?ModuleID=137&Key=2853

Where's Obama's outrage at the torture and murder of pro-democracy protesters in Honduras?

Contents Links

• Where is Obama’s outrage against the beating, jailing and killing of Honduran pro-democracy protesters?


• 
  Just a squabble among Oligarchs? : polls show most Hondurans don’t think so




• Why the US government can’t say it’s “damned if it does”/”damned if it doesn’t” on Honduras; it’s been intervening in Honduras for decades and still is – on the wrong side



• Defending democracy and the constitution?


• Or defending the wealthiest against paying the poor majority a decent minimum wage?


• The reality of the Michelletti government : beating, torturing, raping and killing unarmed demonstrators





• Why the November 29^th elections were neither free nor fair – repression and killings continued during the election campaign and on election day, leading to the majority boycotting them




• How the US and EU have tried to legitimise a coup and elections held under military repression




• Why has the Obama administration backed the coup-makers?




• Will Obama take a stand for democracy ? : An issue of Life or death for Hondurans and Latin Americans

Where is Obama’s outrage against the beating, jailing and killing of Honduran pro-democracy protesters?

“How can it be that the United States government is silent while Hondurans are subjected to arbitrary arrest, the closure of independent media, police beatings, torture and...killings by security forces?...... And now the U.S. government says we can have free elections in less than three weeks...That is a sick joke.””

Bertha Oliva, Committee of the Families of the Disappeared of Honduras, 5th November 2009 (1)

“The beauty of the U.S.-brokered deal is that it is founded on democratic process -- the very thing the Chavistas want to destroy...Meanwhile, a presidential election previously scheduled for Nov. 29 will go forward with international support and regional recognition for the winner. Neither of the two leading presidential candidates supports Mr. Zelaya or his agenda, which means that Honduras's democracy should be preserved, and Mr. Chávez's attempted coup rebuffed’.

Washington Post Editorial ‘A Win for in Honduras’ 31^st October 2009 (1b)

When the Iranian government had pro-democracy protesters beaten, jailed and killed President Obama said he was “appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments...... mourning each and every innocent life that is lost... We've seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted...The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech.”  (2)

Where is his outrage at the beating, torturing and killing of pro-democracy protesters being killed by the coup regime which overthrew the elected President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras? The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found that “demonstrations ...were broken up by...police and military, resulting in deaths... torture and mistreatment, hundreds of injured, and thousands of arbitrary detentions.” , findings backed up by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other journalists, Latin American human rights groups like CODEH and members of the US congress who have gone to Honduras to investigate (3)

Despite initially paying lip-service to restoring Zelaya as the only legitimate and elected President of Honduras, Obama’s administration has continued training Honduras’ military  after claiming it had ended it (4) ; said Zelaya would be responsible for any violence resulting  (suggesting Zelaya’s supporters, not the coup regime would carry it out) when he returned to the country after the military kidnapped and expelled him (5) ; and demanded that the elected President share power with the coup plotters in a “unity” government (6) – (7). It’s also accepted the result of elections organised by the brutal coup regime even though Zelaya was not restored to power before them, robbing the legitimate President of Honduras of bargaining power (8) – (9). Many of the lobbyists calling for these actions – like Lanny Davis – a former adviser to Hillary Clinton -  are in the pay of the wealthiest Honduran families of “oligarchs”, who back the coup (10). 

The Obama administration’s policy on Honduras so far looks worryingly like a subtler form of the Reagan and Bush junior administrations’ policy on Latin America – to back brutal military coups against any elected government which tries to run its economy for the benefit of its own people rather than foreign firms and investors, while claiming to be preventing “Communism” or “Authoritarianism” and defending freedom , democracy and “constitutional order”.

 If Obama wants to show himself and the world that he means what he says when he says he stands for democracy and universal human rights he needs to reject the coup-makers entirely and stand with Zelaya and his supporters, many of whom have paid with their lives to stand up for their democratic rights as much as Iranian protesters have. The difference is that in Honduras, unlike in Iran, what Obama says and does makes all the difference.

Back to contents links/ top of page

 

Just a squabble among Oligarchs? : polls show most Hondurans don’t think so

Kit X has written about the failure of the US-brokered accords between President Zelaya and those members of the Honduran congress who led the supposedly “constitutional” military coup against him, claiming to be defending Honduran democracy.

Some have dismissed the struggle between  Zelaya and Michelletti as a squabble among the oligarchy which makes no difference to the lives of ordinary Hondurans, as Zelaya comes from a wealthy and influential family of major landowners and his father was allegedly involved in the murder of campaigners for land rightsin the 1970s (11) – (12). The Hondurans who have turned out to demonstrate in support of Zelaya despite many of them being jailed, tortured or killed as a result obviously disagree.

The coup’s apologists claim it had the support of the majority of Hondurans. Polls show the opposite. Sixty per cent of Hondurans oppose the coup, 67% thought he was a good President and (13).

 Whatever Zelaya’s motives for his change of policy before the coup the results of his policy changes was a 60% increase in the minimum wage, benefiting the majority of Hondurans – 50% of whom lived in poverty and 30% of  whom lived on under $2 a day, but enraging the wealthiest Hondurans who employ them (14) – (15). Even if he has changed policy just in order to get re-elected in future (with the existing Honduran constitution limiting Presidents to a single term in office) that change benefits Hondurans, who die from poverty, poor diet and lack of clean water and medical care as much as from government repression.

Back to contents links/ top of page

Why the US government can’t say it’s “damned if it does”/”damned if it doesn’t” on Honduras; it’s been intervening in Honduras for decades and still is – on the wrong side

Some have claimed that the issue is comparable to for instance Darfur in Sudan, where the US will be criticised for not preventing war crimes or genocide if it doesn’t intervene and criticised for imperialism and war crimes if it does. This is not an accurate comparison. Sudan is a large country on the other side of the world from the US where US influence is limited, partly due to the Sudanese government having the option of getting arms and trade from governments like China’s.

As New York University History Professor Greg Grandin points out, Honduras by comparison is a tiny country entirely in the US sphere of influence where the US has installed the government of its choice over decades, has a military base with hundreds of troops and the ability to fly in more at will; and where the Honduran military gets most of its arms and training from the US military and is heavily reliant on US military aid. Honduras also does a significant amount of trade with the US (16).

So this isn’t about telling the US to get involved or not – the US already is deeply involved in Honduras, under Obama as much as under previous Presidents. This is about asking a President who claims to stand for genuine democracy and a move away from the arrogance and brutality of previous administrations to put this into practice in a country where he has more power than any other person or government in the world to save the lives and freedom of large numbers of people.

Back to contents links/ top of page

 

Defending democracy and the constitution?

 The coup-makers justified their coup by claiming they were defending democracy and the constitution against Zelaya’s attempt to turn Honduras into a “Communist dictatorship” like Venezuela under Chavez.

 The coup makers “defending the constitution” under Honduran congressman Robert Michelletti began by suspending articles of the same constitution guaranteeing Honduran citizens the rights not to be jailed indefinitely without trial or charge and the rights to freedom of assembly and expression. In September Michelletti suspended even more constitutional rights (17) – (19).

Professor Greg Grandin also says  “several clear violations of Honduras' constitution were carried out on June 28th, including the detention of president Zelaya by the armed forces (violation of articles 293 and 272), his forced deportation to another country (violation of art. 102) (20).

The coup makers’ brutality towards Hondurans went far beyond their formal declarations of suspended rights though and into torture and murder (see section on ‘The Reality of the Micheletti government').

Months later Micheletti realised that formally suspending articles of the constitution he was claiming to defend was bad public relations – and formally restored them – especially those on a free media - while continuing to have the army and police violate them in practice according to reports Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (21) – (24).

Zelaya’s only “unconstitutional” act was to try to organise a non-binding referendum along with the November Presidential elections. The referendum was to have been on whether to have a vote on whether a national constituent assembly should be called to discuss amending the constitution. If the vote was yes Zelaya (who would no longer be President either way)  might have suggested that the constitution be amended to allow Presidents to stand for a second term in office – however it would not, as the coup makers claimed, have let him stand in the next elections and extended his term as President – as the referendum results wouldn’t be known till the election results were in and Zelaya had not declared himself a candidate for those elections. The exact text of the referendum question , published in the newspaper ‘La Prensa’ on 30th June 2009, confirmed this (25) – (26).

Polls show that 54% of Hondurans support establishing a National Constituent Assembly to discuss constitutional reform and 55% would want the constitution changed to allow Presidents to stand for more than one term (27).

 Honduras’ constitution, written in 1982, limits them to one term. The Supreme Court declared that Zelaya’s referendum violated the constitution. However the 1982 constitution was written under a government very like the coup-government today – a US backed civilian front government using the army and police to beat, torture, shoot and “disappear” anyone criticising it or the US government. Military death squads in Honduras were most active in the 1980s, when John Negroponte was the US ambassador to Honduras and organised both US military aid and training to the Honduran military and training for the Nicaraguan “contras” who carried out a campaign of torture, murder and massacre against Nicaraguans – the majority of whom backed the Sandinista rebels who had overthrown the US backed dictatorship of Somoza, who won an election in 1984 which the US government was almost alone in refusing to recognise. Negroponte was also the US ambassador to Iraq at the height of Coalition torture there. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton retains him as an adviser on Honduras (28) – (33)

While the coup was backed by the Supreme Court and much of the congress, this does not make it constitutional much less democratic – as shown by the fact that Zelaya’s unarmed supporters have repeatedly faced death at the hands of the military and police to defend his Presidency. History Professor Greg Grandin has also pointed out that most military coups in Latin America in the past, including Pinochet’s in Chile in 1973, had the support of some judges and elected politicians (34).

Pinochet’s coup, like Micheletti’s against Zelaya, was backed by the country’s Supreme Court, who accused President Allende of violating the ‘right to property’ in the constitution by redistributing land from big landowners to the poor. His opponents in Chile’s congress also claimed he was acting unconstitutionally, just like Roberto Micheletti and his supporters in the Honduran congress. As in Honduras today the same judges and congressmen who claimed to be defending the constitution did nothing to prevent torture and murder in violation of their country’s constitution under the coup regimes (35) - (36).

What’s more Venezuela under Chavez, unlike Honduras under the Micheletti regime, is not a dictatorship. Chavez was elected repeatedly in elections found free and fair by international observers. His change to the constitution to allow him to serve for a third term was made by democratic methods – a referendum followed by a vote in parliament (37) – (38).

Nor is allowing a President to be re-elected for more than two terms that unusual in democracies; It was possible under the US constitution before the 22^nd Amendment of 1951 and there is no limit on the number of terms in office that a British Prime Minister (who has the powers of a US president) can be elected to, for instance.

In fact just about the only democracies to limit Presidents to a single term in office are ones which were former US colonies (such as the Philippines) or were under US backed dictatorships in the past (like El Salvador). The reason is more likely be to prevent a President being in power long enough to be able to develop a power base that could challenge US dominance than anything to do with democracy.

Back to contents links/ top of page

 

Or defending the wealthiest against paying the poor majority a decent minimum wage?

The real motive for the coup was that Zelaya, who was elected as a conservative, then aligned himself with Chavez and ALBA and took the side of the poor majority against the wealthy oligarchy of 10 families of landowners, bankers and businessmen who are used to controlling Honduras with US backing. Zelaya committed the unpardonable sin of increasing the minimum wage by 60% in a country where before his Presidency 44% of the population lived on under $2 a day, 21% were undernourished and 39% of children had their growth stunted by malnutrition (39) – (40).

Some of the coup makers then began paying American lobbyists to put the case against Zelaya’s “dictatorship” and “unconstitutional actions” to US members of congress. One of the best known lobbyists is Lanny Davis, who was Bill Clinton’s counsel in the Monica Lewinsky “scandal” and a campaign adviser, fund-raiser and spokesman for US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign to be the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008. Davis has been employed by Honduran banker Camilo Atala and newspaper tycoon Jorge Canahuati Larach., This was a follow on to Davis previous employment as a lobbyist for President Musharraff’s military dictatorship in Pakistan, which similarly had critics and unarmed demonstrators beaten, jailed, tortured, murdered and disappeared (41) – (43).

In case some of the Honduran military have any qualms about killing their own people the coup regime have also begun hiring mercenaries from other Latin American countries – Colombians are a particular favourite as they have been especially active as part of right wing paramilitary death squads backed by the Colombian military, which is funded, armed and trained by US and British military aid (44).

Back to contents links/ top of page

 

The reality of the Michelletti government : beating, torturing, raping and killing unarmed demonstrators

 The coup government headed by Honduran congressman Robert Micheletti are guilty of real violations of even the 1982 Honduran constitution and acts which are crimes under any democratic constitution – murder and torture.

While claiming to uphold the constitution they suspended the rights under that same constitution to free speech, free assembly and not to be jailed indefinitely without charge or trial.

While there have been some incidents of attacks on property and people by supporters of Zelaya the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have all sent investigators to the country who have found that the vast majority of violence is by the army and police, under orders from the coup regime.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found that:

“...in demonstrations that were suppressed throughout the country—including Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Choloma, Comayagua, and the town of El Paraíso—there was a pattern of excessive use of public force. In fact, several of the demonstrations held since June 28, 2009, were broken up by public security forces, both police and military, resulting in deaths, cases of torture and mistreatment, hundreds of injured, and thousands of arbitrary detentions.”

Two examples were :

“Isis Obed Murillo Mencías, who was 19 years of age, died on July 5, 2009, as a result of a bullet wound to the head, which he sustained while participating in a demonstration outside Tegucigalpa’s Toncontin Airport. The repression was carried out by the National Police and the Army.....

“ The body of Pedro Magdiel Muñoz was found on July 25, 2009, in the department of El Paraíso, near the border with Nicaragua. His body bore signs of torture that had been hidden under a clean shirt that had been put on him after he was killed. The IACHR received testimony from two persons who witnessed his detention by members of the Army hours before his body was to appear. The witnesses informed the Commission that the victim had actively participated that day in demonstrations in front of military roadblocks set up in the area.” (45)

Here are some pictures of one victim of the coup regime.

First Pedro Salvador is dragged away by the police.

Later his body is found at the side of a road.

And is covered in injuries from torture.                 .

 

When Zelaya supporters demanded an end to the coup in a demonstration on 6^th July the military opened fire, killing at least two and wounding dozens. ( You can watch videos of this on this BBC page and on Human Rights Watch’s website) (46) – (47).

These killings were not isolated incidents, just examples out of many documented by the IACHR, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others. We know from these sources that at the least 37 people had been killed by the coup regime by the 22^nd of October according to COFADEH (the Committee of the families of the disappeared of Honduras) , formed during the last major wave of US backed military murders in the 1980s) – and that many more were killed since, as reported by COFADEH and Amnesty International. The real number is almost certainly far higher as what we know is limited by military and police attacks and threats on journalists and TV and radio stations and newspapers being closed down by the coup regime, even after they formally “lifted” restrictions on them (47) – (55).

CODAFEH has also reported more cases of people demonstrating against the coup regime being taken away by police or soldiers and their bodies then being found dumped at the side of the road (56).

COFADEH and Amnesty International report that thousands of protesters have been jailed, many more have been beaten; and that there have been gang rapes of women protesters by soldiers and police, who have also shot protesters dead, raided the offices of the opposition, trade unions and human rights groups and set bombs targeting these groups. The coup government’s death squads are reported to wear black balaclavas, much like the US trained ‘police commando’ death squads in Iraq, trained by the same American officers who led the death squads in El Salvador in the 1980s (57) – (60).

Under Zelaya’s rule there were several murders of journalists who were critical of Zelaya and others who exposed corruption – and threats against human rights groups. These murders should be investigated to determine if they were political or not and whether Zelaya was responsible (61) – (63). However the number of murders by government agents has increased massively since the coup.

 According to COFADEH and other sources the coup government includes former members of the US-trained Honduran army battalion 316, notorious for torturing and murdering civilians in “disappearances” in the 1980s;  and a new 120-member death squad has been established since the coup. (Zelaya’s government had also included politicians who were formerly members of battalion 316) (64) – (68).

There has also been some violence by Zelaya supporters – including attacks on journalists who supported the coup with stones – and petrol bombs thrown into pro-Micheletti newspaper and TV officers (while the military throws grenades into pro-Zelaya ones) (69) – (70). A nephew of coup-leader Roberto Micheletti was also found murdered along with his friends, though police thought this was not political but one of the 7,000 murders a year in Honduras (71).

However the scale of torture and murder under the Micheletti regime is vastly greater, partly because popular opposition to his government is much greater – and it can’t be doubted that the coup government must have approved the repeated and systematic killings of demonstrators by the army and police. Zelaya could win free and fair elections as he had changed policy in office to represent the interests of the majority of Hondurans – the coup makers could not, as their interests are diametrically opposed to the majority’s, which is why they have relied on force.

Back to contents links/ top of page

 

Why the November 29^th elections were neither free nor fair – repression and killings continued during the election campaign and on election day, leading to the majority boycotting them

There is no way that elections held under the continuing military repression described above could possibly be free and fair.

Micheletti announced a new “state of emergency” that continued through the day of the election. Tens of thousands of police, soldiers and reservists were sent to be present at every polling station.  The chief of police announced that he was writing up a hit list of ‘all on the left’ to be targeted .The Honduran newspaper Tempio reported that Mayors were asked to provide lists of “enemies” of the electoral process so they could be “neutralised”. Businesses that had backed the coup offered discounts to anyone who would vote – bribes by any other name. (72) – (75).

Bertha Oliva, the head of COFADEH asked how the US government could claim that Honduras could hold fair elections when “Hondurans [were being] subjected to arbitrary arrest, the closure of independent media, police beatings, torture and even killings by security forces ... And now the U.S. government says we can have free elections in less than three weeks...That is a sick joke.” (76).

As a result many Hondurans and all candidates opposed to the coup boycotted the election. The coup regime’s official figures for turnout have varied from 49% to 56.6% to over 60%, suggesting they’re simply making the figures up . The National Front Against The coup gave an estimate of a 30 to 35% turnout (77) – (80).

The turn-out is really irrelevant though – whatever the turn-out the election campaign and the election took place under military repression, jailings and murders, without freedom of speech, a free media, freedom of assembly or even the right to life. Many of those people who did vote will have done so out of fear for their own lives and those of their families when the coup regime was demanding that everyone vote, or because they are in such severe poverty that they cannot afford to turn down the “cash discounts” on offer.

Back to contents links/ top of page

 

How the US and EU have tried to legitimise a coup and elections held under military repression

The Obama administration’s position on the coup in Honduras has differed greatly from that of the EU and most Latin American governments, though the EU has begun to trim towards the US position since the November 29^th elections, despite them being neither free nor fair.

On 29^th June the New York Times reported that:

President Obama...strongly condemned the ouster of Honduras’s president as an illegal coup that set a “terrible precedent” for the region... “We do not want to go back to a dark past,” Mr. Obama said, in which military coups override elections. “We always want to stand with democracy,”(80)

But the same article noted that the Obama administration, while publicly condemning the coup, had agreed with the coup-makers before the coup that Zelaya’s planned referendum was “unconstitutional”. This will not have gone un-noticed by the coup-makers in their planning.

In the weeks after the coup in June this year a State Department Official was quoted (on the condition of anonymity) as saying “We recognize Zelaya as the duly elected and constitutional president of Honduras. We see no other.”. While the EU cut off all aid to Honduras, the Obama administration cut some and then most US military and foreign aid and claimed to be ending training of Honduran forces by US forces. The latter claim turned out to be untrue by reports that Honduran officers are still being trained in the US. (correction to earlier mistake - Honduras pulled out of joint military exercises with the US in protest at the US not recognising the Micheletti government) (81) – (87).

While Latin American governments in the OAS called for the “immediate and unconditional restoration to power” of President Zelaya and the UN General Assembly (including the American representative) voted overwhelmingly for a similar motion, the Obama administration used vague but positive sounding formulations like “a negotiated, peaceful solution that restores democratic order in accordance with the principles of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, addresses the underlying problems of democratic governability, and enhances the rule of law”. What they meant became clear in the accord, which has since collapsed – it meant that the coup’s leaders, who gained their power by using the army and police to beat, kill, torture and jail Hondurans, in breach of even the 1982 constitution, would get to share power with the democratically elected President of Honduras in a ‘unity’ government (88) – (92).

A Washington Post editorial crowed about how the Obama administration had “outmanoeuvred Hugo Chavez” and his “authoritarian” plans for Honduras. Quite how being elected in elections international observers said were free and fair (whether we’re talking about Chavez or Zelaya)– and then holding referenda on constitutional change – was more “authoritarian” than the Honduran coup-makers’ having the army  beat, jail, torture and kill pro-Zelaya demonstrators – was not explained (93). The Post editorial explained that:

‘The beauty of the U.S.-brokered deal is that it is founded on democratic process -- the very thing the Chavistas want to destroy. The Honduran Congress will vote on whether to restore Mr. Zelaya to office for the three months remaining in his term. Mr. Zelaya says he has the votes to return as president, but if he does, he will head a "government of reconciliation," and the armed forces will report to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, a presidential election previously scheduled for Nov. 29 will go forward with international support and regional recognition for the winner. Neither of the two leading presidential candidates supports Mr. Zelaya or his agenda, which means that Honduras's democracy should be preserved, and Mr. Chávez's attempted coup rebuffed.’

This neat theory is damaged only by the fact that the only coup was carried out by the US's allies in Honduras, not Zelaya and the Chavistas; and by the fact that the Supreme Court of Honduras had rubber-stamped a military coup and military violence and repression which violated the same constitution it claimed to be defending, so that it would be difficult to see it as a guardian of democracy – not to mention that the coup followed the pattern seen in Chile in 1973 in which the Supreme Court and congress helped destroy democracy. (Well that and the fact that Chavez was elected democratically and passed his changes to Venezuela’s constitution by referendum followed by approval by the country’s legislature)

 Then again the Washington Post had no editorials condemning the Caracazo massacre in 1989, by Chavez’s predecessor, the US-backed President Carlos Andrez Perez, in which between hundreds and thousands were murdered and many buried in mass graves to enforce IMF economic policies) (94).

The Obama administration also said that Zelaya’s return to Honduras by stealthily getting through to the Brazilian embassy was “foolish” and claimed that any deaths as a result would be entirely Zelaya’s fault and not at all the fault of the coup makers who sent troops to attack and kill his supporters. Hillary Clinton attacked Zelaya for being “reckless” (95) – (96).

Spokespeople for the Obama administration who hinted that Zelaya was to blame for the coup because of his plan to hold a non-binding referendum on changing the constitution should think a bit more about that. There are members of the US congress claiming Obama’s healthcare plans are “unconstitutional” and they have many supporters in the US public. Does that mean the Obama administration is asking for a military coup, as suggested by Newsmax in the US? (97) – (98)

For months after the coup the State Department also took the position that it would not recognise the results of Presidential elections in Honduras scheduled for 29^th November unless Zelaya was restored to power first (99). They would drop this condition later.

The US government did follow the EU, the OAS and the UN in not sending election observers to the November elections, but not in their statements that the reason they weren’t sending election observers was that they did ‘not think that those elections will be able to take place  in an open, free and democratic context’ as the EU  Commission’s deputy director general for external relations, Stefano Sannino, put it (100).

By early November the US State Department that it would accept the results whether or not Zelaya was restored to office before the elections. Senator John Kerry, who had observed the negotiations between Zelaya and Micheletti, said the US state department caused the collapse of talks by making this policy change (101).

So the Obama administration have accepted elections organised by those who were having their political opponents jailed without trial, tortured and murdered as being “free and fair”. By doing so they are legitimising the violent overthrow of a democracy and the repression and murder of Honduran pro-democracy protesters.

The EU, which before the elections had said it would not recognise the results of elections if Zelaya wasn’t restored before them, also changed policy. After the elections a spokesman for the unelected European Commission of the EU said that “We are very pleased that the elections took place in a broadly peaceful and calm manner," (seeming to join the US government in a parallel universe where military murders are “peaceful”) and added that “"I am not saying we are recognising the elections but also not that we are not recognising them either,”. The Council of the EU released a statement claiming that “the European Union sees the elections as a significant step forward in solving the crisis in Honduras”, without providing the reasoning behind this claim. (102) – (104).

The governments of Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela were among many in Latin America to refuse to recognise the elections, probably because they are composed of people who remember US-backed military coups, dictatorships and death squads in their own countries, though President Uribe of Colombia, whose US-funded government and military are notorious for their involvement in drug trafficking and paramilitary murders, did recognise the results of elections under military repression, along with the governments of Panama, Peru, Costa Rica and Israel (105) – (109).

The Obama administration recognised the election results with the ‘caveat’ that a government of national unity must still be formed, as if that could somehow legitimise an election campaign in which the opposition’s supporters were jailed, tortured and murdered until every candidate who opposed the coup felt they had no choice but to boycott elections which could not be fair (correction to earlier mistake - it would no longer have to include Zelaya - thanks to Kit X for the correction) (110) - (111)

Back to contents links/ top of page

 

Why has the Obama administration backed the coup-makers?

State Department spokesman Phillip J Crowley explained this in a daily press briefing on 20^th July 2009 saying “We certainly think that if we were choosing a model government and a model leader for countries of the region to follow, that the current leadership in Venezuela would not be a particular model. If that is the lesson that President Zelaya has learned from this episode, that would be a good lesson.” , adding that, “I’m a believer in understatement.” (112)

The main reason that the US has called for a “unity” government rather than simply for the restoration of Zelaya is that Zelaya had visited Venezuela and begun negotiations on joining Hugo Chavez’ ALBA grouping, which was formed as an alternative to the Clinton and Bush administrations’ proposed expansion of NAFTA into a ‘Free Trade Area of the Americas’ (now rebranded under Obama as ‘Pathways to Prosperity’.

The reason for Obama’s change in policy and public support for restoring Zelaya might be that his administration hoped to force Zelaya at gunpoint to accept a change in his policies to ones more acceptable to the US and to the wealthiest in Honduras in return for being allowed to return to office.

While many American politicians talk a great deal about Chavez “dictatorship” (already covered earlier) their real reason for opposing him is his economic policy, which focuses on providing for the poor majority of Venezuelans, rather than on the interests of US firms , foreign investors or the wealthy minority in Venezuela who are aligned with them. While they accuse him of buying Zelaya with an offer of cheap oil Chavez has provided cheap oil to Americans who can’t afford it and paid off the debts of Argentina in order to allow it to escape from IMF imposed economic policies which benefited American investors while impoverishing most Argentineans.

While the economic reasons are important Kit X is right to point to the Pentagon’s fear that Honduras would follow Ecuador and Venezuela in demanding the closure of the US air base on its territory.

Back to contents links/ top of page

Will Obama take a stand for democracy ?

: An issue of Life or death for Hondurans and Latin Americans

 

The result in Honduras will decide the future of it’s people : democracy and equality or death squads and poverty, life or death for many. It will also decide the future of Latin America. If the billionaires and militaries in other Latin American countries get the message that Washington will support them or not interfere again, just as in the “good old days” of the 1980s, there may be a wave of military coups, torture, disappearances and deaths across the continent.

 This is one area where, unlike in Sudan or Tibet, the US does have the power to decisively influence whether large numbers of people live or die, live free or live in poverty under the fear of torture, disappearance and death. The US is the decisive influence in Honduras and much of Latin America and the President of the US is the decisive actor in American politics.

This is an issue which will show what Obama’s administration is really about. Will it stop torture, murder, massacres and the overthrow of democracy when it has the power to? Is it about change for the better or is it just about a more subtle and better presented form of ruthless imperialism, which couldn’t give a toss for democracy or human lives except as rhetorical flourishes?

So far Obama has caved in to pressure from paid propagandists like Lanny Davis and trivial threats to delay congressional confirmation of administration appointments by right-wing Republicans like Senator Jim De Mint. Clearly the Obama administration needs to get pressure from progressives in the US before it will do the right thing.

Everyone should urge Obama to follow his conscience and make sure that when he talks about democracy he acts on his words by withdrawing recognition from a new Honduran President who came to power in elections which were held under military repression – and demand new elections in Honduras preceded by an end to murder and repression of opponents of the coup.

Back to contents links/ top of page

 

(1) = Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and COFADEH joint press release 05 Nov 2009 ‘Honduras' Most Prominent Human Rights Expert Calls on Obama Administration to Denounce "Grave Human Rights Violations" : Too Late to Have Free Elections This Month, She Says from Washington’, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/honduras-human-rights-expert/

(1a) = Washington Post 31 Oct 2009 ‘Editorial : A win in Honduras : How the Obama administration outmaneuvered Hugo Chávez’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103003360.html

 (2) = The White house blog 23 Jun 2009 ‘The President's Opening Remarks on Iran, with Persian Translation’, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Opening-Remarks-on-Iran-with-Persian-Translation

(3) = IACHR 21 Aug 2009 ‘PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ON THE IACHR VISIT TO HONDURAS’, http://www.cidh.org/Comunicados/English/2009/60-09eng.Preliminary.Observations.htm

(4) = National Catholic Reporter 14 Jul 2009 ‘U.S. continues to train Honduran soldiers’, http://ncronline.org/news/global/us-continues-train-honduran-soldiers

(5) = BBC News 28 Sep 2009 ‘US brands Zelaya return 'foolish'’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8279243.stm

(6) = Sunday Herald 01 Nov 2009 ‘Honduran coup leaders heed call for power-sharing deal’, http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/honduran-coup-leaders-heed-call-for-power-sharing-deal-1.929545

(7) = State Department Press Briefing 06 Nov 2009 , by Dept. Spokesman Ian Kelly, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/nov/131390.htm ( “We urge both sides to act in the best interests of the Honduran people and return to the table immediately to reach agreement on the formation of a unity government.”)

 (8) = AFP 15 Nov 2009 ‘Zelaya wants no part of US-brokered deal for Honduras’,http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gBxKjBWFu4axGh9GNh64IMwosgJQ (state department then says it will recognise elections held by coup regime even if Zelaya is not restored to office before them)

(9) = Washington Post 12 Nov 2009 ‘Honduras accord is on verge of collapse’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111126949.html ; "The State Department's abrupt change of policy towards Honduras last week -- recognizing the elections scheduled for Nov. 29 even if the coup regime does not meet its commitments under the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord -- caused the collapse of an accord it helped negotiate," said Frederick L. Jones, a spokesman for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry(D-Mass.).

 (10) = See (5) above

Just a squabble among Oligarchs?

(11) = Time Magazine 18 Aug 1975 ‘Blood and Land’,

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,917730,00.html?promoid=googlep

(12) = Jennifer Harbury (2006) ‘Truth, Torture and the American Way’, Beacon Press, 2006, page 48

(13) = Greenberg Quinlan Rossner Research ‘Honduran President Mel Zelaya Retains Public Support’, http://www.gqrr.com/index.php?ID=2399 ; full survey ‘Honduras Frequency Questionnaire October 9-13, 2009 621 Respondents’, http://www.gqrr.com/repository/documents/1574.pdf

(14) = Irish Times 14 Aug 2009 ‘Dangers in US ambivalence to ditched Honduran democracy’, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0814/1224252546730.html

(15) = UNDP Human Development Report 2007/2008 – Country Report Honduras,

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_HND.html

(16) = Democracy Now 29 Jun 2009 ‘Coup in Honduras: Military Ousts President Manuel Zelaya, Supporters Defy Curfew and Take to the Streets’,

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/29/coup_in_honduras_military_ousts_president

A Coup defending democracy and the constitution?

(17) = HRW 02 Jul 2009 ‘Honduras: Decree Suspends Basic Rights’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/02/honduras-decree-suspends-basic-rights

(18) = Guardian 02 Jul 2009 ‘Honduran coup leaders curb civil liberties to tamp down Zelaya support’,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/02/honduras-coup-manuel-zelaya

(19) = Guardian.co.uk 28 Sep 2009 ‘Honduras suspends civil liberties amid calls for 'rebellion'’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/honduras-suspends-civil-liberties-zelaya

 (20) = Huffington Post 10 Aug 2009 – ‘Fact Checking Lanny Davis on Honduras’, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-grandin/fact-checking-lanny-davis_b_255900.html; (by Professor Greg Grandin, History Professor at NY university)

 (21) = NYT 02 Oct 2009 ‘A Promise to Restore Civil Liberties Is Slow to Become Reality in Honduras’, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/americas/03honduras.html

 (22) = AP 05 Oct 2009 ‘Interim Honduran leader restores civil rights’, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33180679/

(23) = HRW 30 Oct 2009 ‘Honduras: Investigate Abuses, Repeal Repressive Measures, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/30/honduras-investigate-abuses-repeal-repressive-measures

(24) = CNN 10 Oct 2009 ‘Use of mercenaries in Honduras on the rise, U.N. panel says’,http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/10/09/honduras.mercenaries/ (‘Radio Globo and the Canal 36 TV station have been closed since September 28, when Micheletti suspended many of the nation's civil liberties. Micheletti said Monday he was lifting the emergency measures, but Amnesty International says security forces continue to hold equipment from both media outlets."There's no legal reason for Radio Globo and Canal 36 to remain closed," said Susan Lee, the Americas director at Amnesty International.)

(25) = Poliblog – Stephen L. Taylor 30 Jun 2009 ‘The Exact Text of the Zelaya Plebiscite’, http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=16138

(26) = La Prensa (Honduras) 30 Jun 2009 ‘Si regresa Mel irá a prisión’,http://www.periodicos-de-honduras.com/2009/06/30/si-regresa-mel-ira-a-prision/

(27) = Greenberg Quinlan Rossner Research ‘Honduran President Mel Zelaya Retains Public Support’, http://www.gqrr.com/index.php?ID=2399 ; full survey ‘Honduras Frequency Questionnaire October 9-13, 2009 621 Respondents’, http://www.gqrr.com/repository/documents/1574.pdf

(28) = New York Times 19 Jan 1988 ‘In Human Rights Court, Honduras Is First to Face Death Squad Trial’,

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/19/world ... %20&st=cse and http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-141.htm (reports that some Honduran military death squad units CIA trained and on death squad murders of civilians



(29) = Times 10 Jan 2005 ‘El Salvador-style 'death squads' to be deployed by US against Iraq militants’,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 410491.ece (covers John Negroponte being US ambassador to Honduras in 1980s, use of death squads by US backed govts in Americas in 1980s, training of Contras in Honduras)



(30) = Amnesty International World Report 2009 – Honduras, http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/region ... s/honduras



(31) = Schroeder, Michael J. ‘ “To Induce a sense of terror” : Caudillo Politics and Political Violence’ in Campbell, Bruce B. & Brenner, Arthur D.(eds) (2000) ‘Death Squads in Global Perspective : Murder with Deniability’, Palgrave MacMillan, London, 2002, Chapter 2

(32) = See the sources on this link numbered 67 to 69

(33) = Independent 19 July 2009 ‘Democracy hangs by a thread in Honduras’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/democracy-hangs-by-a-thread-in-honduras-1752315.html 

(34) = Huffington Post 10 Aug 2009 – ‘Fact Checking Lanny Davis on Honduras’, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-grandin/fact-checking-lanny-davis_b_255900.html ; (by Professor Greg Grandin, History Professor at NY university)

(35) = Simon Collier & William F. Sater (1996) ‘A history of Chile 1808-1994’, Cambridge University Press, Edinburgh & NY, 1996, Chapter 12, pages 346 - 358

(36) = Pamela Constable & Arturo Valenzuela (1991) ‘A nation of enemies : Chile under Pinochet’, Norton paperbacks, 1993, Chapter 5

(37) = Gott, Richard (2005) , ‘Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution’, Verso, London & New York, 2005

(38) = Final Report: Presidential Elections Venezuela 2006,” European Union Election Observation Mission, 2006.http://www.eueomvenezuela.org/pdf/MOE_UE_Venezuela_2006_final_eng.pdf

(39) = CBS News 22 Nov 2009 ‘Honduras Election Sets Return To Business As Usual’, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/22/ap/latinamerica/main5737751.shtml

(40) = United Nations Statistical Institute for Asia and the Caribbean ‘Honduras : Brief Poverty Overview’ (date given for stats is 2001), http://www.unsiap.or.jp/participants_work/cos03_homepages/group8/honduras.htm

(41) = Sunday Herald 01 Nov 2009 ‘Honduran coup leaders heed call for power-sharing deal’, http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/honduran-coup-leaders-heed-call-for-power-sharing-deal-1.929545

(42) = BBC News 16 Feb 2000 ‘Intense lobbying over Clinton visit’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/645396.stm

(43) = New York Times 03 Dec 2007 ‘LETTER; Senator Clinton and Iran: The Story of a Vote, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3DF153FF933A15753C1A9619C8B63 , ‘The writer, special counsel to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, is a fund-raiser for Senator Clinton's presidential campaign.’

(44) = CNN 10 Oct 2009 ‘Use of mercenaries in Honduras on the rise, U.N. panel says’, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/10/09/honduras.mercenaries/

(45) = Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) 21 Aug 2009 ‘PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ON THE IACHR VISIT TO HONDURAS’, http://www.cidh.org/Comunicados/English/2009/60-09eng.Preliminary.Observations.htm

(46) = BBC News 06 Jul 2009 ‘Deadly clash at Honduran airport, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8135453.stm

(47) = Human Rights Watch 08 Jul 2009 ‘Honduras: Evidence Suggests Soldiers Shot Into Unarmed Crowd’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/08/honduras-evidence-suggests-soldiers-shot-unarmed-crowd 

(48) = HRW 30 Oct 2009 ‘Honduras: Investigate Abuses, Repeal Repressive Measures, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/30/honduras-investigate-abuses-repeal-repressive-measures

 (49) = COFADEH 22 Oct 2009 ‘segundo informe : VIOLACIONES A DERECHOS HUMANOS EN EL MARCO DEL GOLPE DE ESTADO EN HONDURAS : cifras y rostros de la repression ‘Second Report : HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER THE COUP IN HONDURAS ; figures and faces of repression’,http://www.cofadeh.org/html/documentos/segundo_informe_situacionl_resumen_violaciones_ddhh_golpe_estado.pdf

(50) = Amnesty International 25 Sep 2009 ‘Several reported dead in Honduras turmoil’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/several-reported-dead-honduras-turmoil-20090925

 (51) = Amnesty International 30 Sep 2009 ‘Increased abuses in Honduras given green light by Executive Decree’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/increased-abuses-honduras-given-green-light-executive-decree-20090930

 (52) = Amnesty International 19 Aug 2009 ‘Honduras photos and protestor testimonies show extent of police violence’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/Honduras-photos-and-protestor-testimonies-show-extent-of-police-violence-20090819

(53) = Amnesty International 29 Nov 2009 ‘Honduras: Authorities must reveal identities and whereabouts of people detained today’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/honduras-authorities-must-reveal-identities-and-whereabouts-people-deta-0

(54) = Amnesty International 30 Nov 2009 ‘Military shooting in Honduras must be urgently investigated and witnesses protected’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/military-shooting-honduras-urgently-investigated-witnesses-protected-20091130

(55) = Amnesty International 03 Dec 2009 ‘Independent investigation needed into Honduras human rights abuses’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/independent-investigation-needed-honduras-human-rights-abuses-20091203 ; ‘During its visit to Honduras, Amnesty International's delegation documented numerous cases of human rights abuses carried out since last June, when President Manuel Zelaya was forced into exile...These included killings following excessive use of force, arbitrary arrests of demonstrators by police and military, indiscriminate and unnecessary use of tear gas, ill treatment of detainees in custody, violence against women, harassment of activists, journalists, lawyers and judges. ..The organization found that members of the military assigned to law enforcement duties were involved in committing serious human rights violations such as killings following excessive use of force, arbitrary arrests and illegal raids.’

(56) = COFADEH 25 Jul 2009 ‘Estalla explosivo en sede sindical, capturan infiltrados y paramilitares amenazan la vida de manifestantes’, http://www.cofadeh.org/html/noticias/golpe_estado_estalla_bomba_stibys.html

 (57) = COFADEH 25 Jul 2009 ‘Militares obstaculizan labor de defensores de derechos humanos’, http://www.cofadeh.org/html/noticias/golpe_estado_obstaculizan_labor_defensores_ddhh.html (the monolingual, like myself, can copy and paste the text into ‘Google translate’ for a rough English translation - this page reports on ‘two missing people who were detained by the military-police checkpoints. Peter Mandiel, one of the latter two found murdered at a checkpoint located near a few meters from Alauca, Paradise’

 (58) = COFADEH 22 Oct 2009 ‘segundo informe : VIOLACIONES A DERECHOS HUMANOS EN EL MARCO DEL GOLPE DE ESTADO EN HONDURAS : cifras y rostros de la repression ‘Second Report : HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

UNDER THE COUP IN HONDURAS ; figures and faces of repression’,http://www.cofadeh.org/html/documentos/segundo_informe_situacionl_resumen_violaciones_ddhh_golpe_estado.pdf

(59) = Amnesty International 04 Dec 2009 ‘Activists in Honduras tell Amnesty International of hidden human rights crisis’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/activists-honduras-tell-amnesty-international-hidden-human-rights-crisis-2009120

(60) = Amnesty International 03 Dec 2009 ‘Honduras: No return to “business as usual”’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/honduras-no-return-%E2%80%9Cbusiness-usual%E2%80%9D-20091203

(61) = IFEX 19 Oct 2007 ‘Journalist murdered following threats, government harassment of critical radio station’,

http://www.ifex.org/honduras/2007/10/19/journalist_murdered_following_threats/

(62) = Amnesty International 25 Sep 2008 ‘Honduras: Open letter to the President of Honduras about human rights defenders’,

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR37/004/2008/en/8021425c-9484-11dd-8a66-2b277e06f5bd/amr370042008en.html

(63) = IFEX 02 Apr 2009 ‘Journalist Rafael Munguía Ortiz murdered in San Pedro Sula’,

http://www.ifex.org/honduras/2009/04/02/journalist_rafael_mungu_a_ortiz/

(64) = COFADEH ‘Violadores de Derechos Humanos en la década de los 80`s’, http://www.cofadeh.org/html/violadores%20ddhh/index.htm

(65) = New York Times 07 Aug 2009 ‘A Cold War Ghost Reappears in Honduras’, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/world/americas/08joya.html

(66) = Professor Greg Grandin (2007) ‘Empire’s Workshop : Latin America, the United States and the rise of Imperialism’ Holt Paperbacks, New York, 2006

(67) = http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2009/11/reality-of-us-counter-insurgency-so-far.html

(68) = MESOAMERICA,Volume 25, Number 6, June 2006 ‘HONDURAS : Human Rights Workers Denounce Battalion 3-16 Participation in Zelaya Government’, http://www.mesoamericaonline.net/MES0_ARCHIVES/Countries/Hond/HOJUN06.pdf

(69) = IFEX 02 Jul 2009 ‘Alert : Respect press freedom, IAPA again urges Honduras’, http://www.ifex.org/honduras/2009/07/06/respect_press_freedom/

(70) = IFEX 11 Nov 2009 ‘Media faces grenade attacks and more soldiers in the streets’, http://www.ifex.org/honduras/2009/11/11/grenades_media/

 (71) = BBC News 27 Oct 2009 ‘Honduras leader's nephew killed’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8327196.stm ; ‘It is not thought that the interim leader's nephew was involved in politics, but Honduras has the highest murder rate in Central America - much of it drug related. ...Last year more than 7,000 people were killed.’

Why the elections weren’t democratic, free or fair

(72) = Guardian 27 Nov 2009 ‘Honduras coup: troops deployed to oversee election’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/27/honduras-election-troops-deployed-zelaya

(73) = La Tribuna (Honduras) 11 Nov 2009 ‘Policía hondureña insta a actuar contra medios que inciten boicot electoral’, http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=62796 cited by Calvin Tucker/guardian.co.uk 26 Nov 2009 ‘Trampling on Honduran democracy,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/26/honduras-democracy-election-us

(74) = Tempio (Honduras) 06 Jun 2009 ‘El signo de la represión’, http://www.tiempo.hn/editoriales/5898-el-signo-de-la-represion

(75) = Morning Star 12 Sep 2009 ‘Honduras: bosses offer to pay people to vote’, http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/honduras_bosses_offer_to_pay_people_to_vote_01910.html

(76) = Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and COFADEH joint press release 05 Nov 2009 ‘Honduras' Most Prominent Human Rights Expert Calls on Obama Administration to Denounce "Grave Human Rights Violations" : Too Late to Have Free Elections This Month, She Says from Washington’, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/honduras-human-rights-expert/

(77) = Guardian.co.uk 30 Nov 2009 ‘Honduras elects Porfirio Lobo as new president’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/30/honduras-lobo-president ; ‘A pro-Zelaya candidate withdrew, leaving the field dominated by candidates from the traditional ruling elite.

(78) = AFP 04 Dec 2009 ‘Honduras revises down participation in disputed polls’, http://www.france24.com/en/node/4940819

(79) = CNN 06 Dec 2009 ‘CNN analysis: Majority of eligible Hondurans voted in presidential election’, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/12/05/honduras.election.turnout/

(80) = Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular Contra el Golpe de Estado 29 Nov 2009, Communicado No. 40, ‘DENUNCIA EL FRACASO DE LA FARSA ELECTORAL’, http://contraelgolpedeestadohn.blogspot.com/2009/11/comunicado-no-40.html

How the US and EU have tried to legitimise a coup and elections held under military repression

(81) = NYT 29 Jun 2009 ‘In a Coup in Honduras, Ghosts of Past U.S. Policies’, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/world/americas/30honduras.html?_r=2 ; ‘President Obama on Monday strongly condemned the ouster of Honduras’s president as an illegal coup that set a “terrible precedent” for the region... “We do not want to go back to a dark past,” Mr. Obama said, in which military coups override elections. “We always want to stand with democracy,” he added..But American officials did not believe that Mr. Zelaya’s plans for the referendum were in line with the Constitution, and were worried that it would further inflame tensions with the military and other political factions, administration officials said. ..Even so, one administration official said that while the United States thought the referendum was a bad idea, it did not justify a coup...“On the one instance, we’re talking about conducting a survey, a nonbinding survey; in the other instance, we’re talking about the forcible removal of a president from a country,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity during a teleconference call with reporters.’

(82) = Reuters 28 Jun 2009 ‘U.S. says Zelaya is the only president of Honduras’, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55R2AY20090628 "We recognize Zelaya as the duly elected and constitutional president of Honduras. We see no other," the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told reporters in a conference call organized by the U.S. State Department.” (or see Times (UK) 29 Jun 2009 ‘'Shots fired' and curfew imposed in Honduras’,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6599733.ece )

(83) = BBC News 21 Jul 2009 ‘EU suspends $90m aid to Honduras’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8159986.stm

(84) = guardian.co.uk 03 Sep 2009 ‘US cuts all non-humanitarian aid to Honduras in support of Zelaya’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/03/us-honduras-aid-manuel-zelaya

(85) = LA Times 04 Sep 2009 ‘U.S. cuts off $30 million in aid to Honduras’, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-honduras4-2009sep04,0,1312087.story

(86) = National Catholic Reporter 14 Jul 2009 ‘U.S. continues to train Honduran soldiers’, http://ncronline.org/news/global/us-continues-train-honduran-soldiers

(87) = Telesur 10 Sep 2009 ‘Comando Sur invita a Gobierno de facto hondureño a participar en ensayos militares’, http://www.telesurtv.net/noticias/secciones/nota/57405-NN/comando-sur-invita-a-gobierno-de-facto-hondureno-a-participar-en-ensayos-militares/; cited by

(88) = = NYT 30 Jun 2009 ‘After Losing Honduras, Ousted Leader Wins International Support’,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/americas/01honduras.html?_r=1&ref=world (A one-page resolution — sponsored by countries often at loggerheads, including the United States and Venezuela — passed by acclamation after sustained applause in the 192-member body. It condemned Mr. Zelaya’s removal as a coup and demanded his “immediate and unconditional restoration” as president.)

(89) = OAS 28 Jun 2009 ‘OAS PERMANENT COUNCIL CONDEMNS COUP D’ETAT IN HONDURAS, CALLS MEETING OF MINISTERS AND ENTRUSTS SECRETARY GENERAL WITH CARRYING OUT CONSULTATIONS’,http://www.oas.org/OASpage/press_releases/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-214/09

(90) = AP 09 Jun 2009 ‘Ousted president, replacement duel for Honduras’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8582484

(91) = U.S State Department letter of reply to Senator Richard Lugar 04 Aug 2009, http://lugar.senate.gov/sfrc/pdf/Honduras2.pdf

(92) =  State Department Daily Press Briefing 20 Jul 2009 -  Briefer: Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs, http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/July/20090721104250xjsnommis0.6856653.html

(93) = Washington Post 31 Oct 2009 ‘Editorial : A win in Honduras : How the Obama administration outmaneuvered Hugo Chávez’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103003360.html

(94) = Clifford C. Rohde, Jamie Fellner, Cynthia G. Brown, Americas Watch Committee (U.S.) & Human Rights Watch (1993) ‘Human rights in Venezuela’, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wDIhkigqO-sC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

(95) = BBC News 28 Sep 2009 ‘US brands Zelaya return 'foolish', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8279243.stm

(96) = AP 24 Jul 2009 ‘Exiled Honduran president takes symbolic steps onto country's land’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/24/honduras-manuel-zelaya

(97) = Newsmax 18 Oct 2009 ‘Obamacare May Be Unconstitutional’,http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_health_constitution/2009/10/18/273679.html

(98) = MediaMatters 29 Sep 2009 ‘Newsmax columnist: Military coup "to resolve the 'Obama problem' " is not "unrealistic"’, http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909290042

(99) = State Department Press Release 03 Sep 2009 ‘Termination of Assistance and Other Measures Affecting the De Facto Regime in Honduras’, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/sept/128608.htm

(100) = Latin American Herald Tribune Sep 2009 ‘EU Won’t Provide Observers for Honduran Elections’, http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=23558&ArticleId=343518 ; ‘The commission’s deputy director general for external relations, Stefano Sannino, said in an interview with Efe that the EU, “like the other Latin American countries, does not think that those elections will be able to take place  in an open, free and democratic context.”’

(101) = Washington Post 12 Nov 2009 ‘Honduras accord is on verge of collapse’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111126949.html , ‘Key American lawmakers, and Zelaya's followers, were startled by remarks by Assistant Secretary of State Thomas A. Shannon Jr. last week that the U.S. government would recognize the election results irrespective of whether the ousted Honduran president was returned to office promptly...."The State Department's abrupt change of policy towards Honduras last week -- recognizing the elections scheduled for Nov. 29 even if the coup regime does not meet its commitments under the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord -- caused the collapse of an accord it helped negotiate," said Frederick L. Jones, a spokesman for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).

(102) = Xinua News Agency (China) 22 Oct 2009 ‘EU not to recognize Honduran election without agreement’, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/23/content_12304461.htm

(103) = Council of the European Union 03 Dec 2009 ‘Declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on the situation in Honduras after the elections’, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/cfsp/111651.pdf

(104) = EU Observer 30 Nov 2009 ‘EU pleased with 'broadly peaceful' Honduran election’, http://euobserver.com/24/29075

(105) = Washington Post 01 Dec 2009 ‘U.S. and some allies at odds over Honduras presidential election’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112900989.html

(106) = Inter-Press Service 01 Dec 2009 ‘LATIN AMERICA: Summit Does Not Recognise Elections in Honduras’, http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49492

(107) = Colombia Reports 30 Nov 2009 ‘Colombia recognizes new Honduras president’ , http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/7104-colombia-recognizes-new-honduras-president.html

(108) = AP 27 Nov 2009 ‘Costa Rica to recognize next Honduran government’, http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/27/costa-rica-to-recognize-next-honduran-government/

(109) = BBC News 30 Nov 2009 ‘Honduras elects Zelaya rival Porfirio Lobo as president’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8384874.stm

(110) = Reuters ‘U.S. recognizes Honduras vote with caveats’, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091130/wl_nm/us_honduras ' The State Department recognized Porfirio Lobo's victory in Sunday's election but said the Honduran Congress still needed to vote on the restoration of deposed President Manuel Zelaya and form a government of national unity.'

(111) = US State Department 30 Nov 2009 'Briefing on the Honduran Elections', http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/rm/2009/132777.htm

(112) = State Department Daily Press Briefing 10 Nov 2009 Assistant Secretary Philip Crowley briefs reporters , http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/November/20091110170932xjsnommis0.3801081.html#ixzz0WyVWKqSv