Honduras is a small country in Central America with only seven million inhabitants, but it has been embarked on a programme of growing democracy of its own. In 2005, Zelaya ran promising to help the country’s poor majority – and he kept his word. He increased the minimum wage by 60 percent, saying sweatshops were no longer acceptable and “the rich must pay their share.”

The tiny elite at the top – who own 45 percent of the country’s wealth – are horrified. They are used to having Honduras run by them, for them.

But this wave of redistributing wealth to the population is washing over Latin America.

- HUFFPOST, Saturday, July 4, 2009

The poor Central American republics to the west and south of Belize – Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Salvador, have a similar history. They gained independence from Spain in 1821, and powerful oligarchies emerged in all of them, buttressed by a professional military. The rich elite of these republics tended to be light-skinned, Hispanic, and neo-European. The poor masses tended to be indigenous and darker-skinned. The Roman Catholic establishment in these republics have traditionally been allies of the rich and the military.

After the communist Russian Revolution in 1917, those in the republics who agitated for improved conditions for the poor masses, were branded as “communist” by the rich, the military and the Church. After World War II ended in 1945, the United States and Russia, who had combined with Great Britain to defeat Germany, Italy and Japan in the war, became enemies, because the U.S. was capitalist and the U.S.S.R. was communist, and both sought world hegemony.

About twenty years ago, Russia communism collapsed, and almost two decades of relatively untrammeled neoliberal capitalism ensued in our region, except in Cuba, briefly in Nicaragua, and finally in Venezuela. But in the last few years, there has been a reaction against neoliberal capitalism in South and Central America. The surge in so-called leftist government in Latin America, “leftist,” to this newspaper’s mind, meaning “representative of the poor,” increased when world capitalism, beginning on Wall Street in New York, collapsed last year.

In Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Salvador, the rich elite, along with the military and the Church, retained power during the Cold War by arguing to American politicians and the Pentagon that, by fighting communism, they were committed allies of the United States, defenders of democracy, Christianity and Western civilization, and therefore deserved unqualified American support. The rich elite were, of course, enemies of true democracy, because they exploited the masses of their own people.

A modicum of electoral democracy has crept into all four of our neighboring republics – Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Salvador. That electoral democracy is contingent upon the military remaining in their barracks and not overthrowing the electoral order of things. The decision by the Honduran military, in collusion with the Honduran oligarchy, to throw constitutionally elected president, Jose Manuel Zelaya, out of office on Sunday, June 28, is an ominous development. It has been condemned by all the nations in the Organization of American States (OAS), because this return to military rule in Honduras implicitly threatens democracies throughout Latin America.

In the United States, there is a strong militaristic element, normally led by the Republican Party, who believe in supporting strong arm, pro-business, oligarchical governments in this Western Hemisphere. Under the Republicans, this is a part of American foreign policy.

Democratic president Barack Obama is under pressure from the American militarists to ignore the military ouster of Jose Manuel Zelaya, and support the military-business alliance in Honduras.

HUFFPOST wrote on Saturday, July 4 – “Yet the military-business nexus have invented a propaganda-excuse that is being eagerly repeated by dupes across the Western world. The generals claim they have toppled the democratically elected leader and arrested his ministers to save democracy. Here’s how it happened. Honduras has a constitution that was drawn up in 1982, by the oligarchy, under supervision from the outgoing military dictatorship. It states that the president can only serve one term, while the military remains permanent and ‘independent’ – in order to ensure they remain the real power in the land. Zelaya believed this was a block on democracy, and proposed a referendum to see if the people wanted to elect a constituent assembly to draw up a new constitution. It could curtail the power of the military, and perhaps allow the president to run for re-election. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that it is unconstitutional to hold a binding referendum within a year of a presidential election. So Zelaya proposed holding a non-binding referendum instead, just to gauge public opinion. This was perfectly legal. The military – terrified of the verdict of the people – then marched in with their guns.”

There is a crisis in Honduras because the “military-business nexus” under appointed president Roberto Micheletti, having ejected Zelaya violently on June 28, cannot allow him to return peacefully at any time in the near future. This has become a macho showdown in Tegucigalpa. It is a return to the past.

The sanctions being imposed on the rogue Micheletti government in Honduras will mostly hurt the poor. In addition, there will always be “Western” countries which will ignore the sanctions imposed by their “Western” allies. For example when U.S. president Jimmy Carter suspended military aid to Guatemala in 1977, Israel, Taiwan and Belgium eagerly stepped in to assist the Guatemalan military dictatorship. When South Africa was being ostracized in the West for her apartheid racism, Israel and Portugal and other “Western” countries cooperated with South Africa.

In conclusion, we point out to you that there is a “color question” in Honduras, which is a very close neighbor of Belize’s. Many Belizeans have relatives in Honduras, and vice versa. We have our problems in Belize, but we enjoy a functional electoral democracy. Apart from that, there is no manifest official discrimination in Belize where race, color, ethnicity and so on are concerned. We Belizeans hope that Honduras finds a way to return to electoral democracy. After that, we hope that they move forward to equal rights and justice.

Power to the people.
http://www.amandala.com.bz/index.php?id=8852

Gringo, you know Evan X plays the race card whenever he has a chance.

Honduras is going to be fine and stronger for having stood up to the pressure to play according to the wishes of the powerful of the world.

Adding a link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...n_is_97329.html

I am going back to La Ceiba in sept...I think. last time I was there everyone seemed armed. All the shop owners no matter how small had armed guards posted at their doors, and this wasn't the troubled Honduras, it was normal business. A very uncomfortable atmosphere with lot of incompetent people toting automatic weapons.
It must be a war zone now.
Nice that Belize has such good gun control laws, If San Pedro has a revolt Coconuts could be flying everywhere, while the Barny Fifes in the military are looking for their bullet.
i love belize more all the time.

Well said. And thanks for the link, a very concise synopsis of events in Honduras.

"Fair and balanced" or at least getting the other story is always helpful...

lol

Whatcha talkin bout Willis? What a hoot. Depends on what your media source is as to how the story is presented. Seems like we are headed towards a similar conundrum in the USA with a strong...er absolute Executive Branch...er the same in the Legislative...thank God for the Supreme Court for now. Actually, we are screwed. JMHO

Caudillismo in Action: Looking Back on Honduras’ Plight

The unfortunate events that have besieged the relatively few and brittle democratic institutions of Honduras in the last few weeks cannot be neatly compartmentalized into right or wrong, as certain insider and outsider actors would like to do.

Manuel Zelaya Rosales, the deposed President of Honduras, correctly claims that he has been the victim of a coup at the hands of middle class elites that viewed him as a threat to their political and economic power.

On the morning of June 28, the day a “non-binding” referendum was scheduled, he was whisked away from his home in the capital Tegucigalpa by soldiers of the Honduran Armed Forces, and taken to the Hernan Acosta Mejia Airforce base on the outskirts of the city.

For several hours, the country did not have any clear information about the event. Columns of tanks and soldiers took to the streets of Tegucigalpa and a deliberate power outage was triggered, which left the citizens of Honduras veritably in the dark as to what exactly was occurring. Hours later, a distressed Zelaya appeared at a press conference at Juan Santamaría Airport in Costa Rica where he claimed to have been a victim of a coup and that the military had flown him out of the country.

However obfuscated was the information that this was a coup carried out by the military, a range of ideologically diverse world leaders unanimously denounced the coup. Zelaya’s expulsion has been flatly rejected by leaders of right-leaning Mexico and Colombia, moderate Brazil and Chile, and the members of the left-leaning ALBA bloc alike.

Leaders throughout the Americas have firmly stated that they will not recognize any president other than Zelaya. Predictably, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez offered the most acerbic denunciation regarding the forceful takeover, claiming that certain enclaves within the military and the bourgeoisie had “turned Honduras into a ‘banana republic,’ into a political, military and terror base for the North American empire,” while simultaneously rattling his saber claiming that he would “overthrow” any government that was not Zelaya’s.

Countering Chavez’s relatively qualified accusations of U.S. complicity, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and US ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens reiterated the stance taken by the rest of the hemisphere: President Zelaya is the only president that the United States will recognize. At the same time, US officials are hesitant to label June 28’s events a “military coup,” presumably since such a designation would automatically force a cut off of all-important U.S.-financed assistance to the beleaguered Honduran economy. Additionally, the UN, OAS, Rio Group and other area transnational bodies released strongly worded statements deeming the military’s actions anachronistic in 21st century Latin America, and corrosive of democracy.

Following Zelaya’s forced exile, Speaker of the National Congress Roberto Micheletti was sworn in unanimously by the Honduran Congress as Interim President of the country. Micheletti promptly installed a weeklong curfew and brought on a democracy wrecking crew which began to censor certain television and radio networks aligned with Zelaya. Just as quickly as he stepped in to fill the vacant presidential position, he was unanimously and properly condemned by the international community with Chavez going so far as to claim that he would overthrow the nascent regime, or at least that the “blue helmets” of the UN should.

As the interim government, the Micheletti regime found itself without a friend in sight. The rump government is now faced with an emboldened Zelaya who today enjoys undivided solidarity from the entire hemisphere. It is unlikely that the interim government will be able to hold onto power for much longer given the inevitability of decisive action against it. There are questions that deserve to be answered before any lasting solution can be administered: How did Honduras get to this point? Who is to blame? Unfortunately, culpability probably lies in every sector.

The Executive
Since his inauguration in January 2006, President Manuel Zelaya and his administration have been battered by several scandals which have raised suspicion across the country about the government’s bona fides. Once in power, Zelaya was personally known for an exceedingly confrontational posture towards other branches of government, as was made evident by his sometimes hostile stance toward his own Vice-President, and the forceful removal of government employees on dubious grounds. Furthermore, Zelaya’s own financial, nepotistic and corruption scandals included a number of hotly sought-after appointments to state-run companies that were ultimately steered to the brink of bankruptcy (Hondutel and ENEE), as well as his own questionable use of state funds for personal projects. Despite all this, his alignment with Hugo Chavez’s ALBA bloc proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, as it fully galvanized the controversy surrounding Zelaya’s presidency and set the stage for the most recent events to take place. But even then, Zelaya was never the firebrand radical leftwing ideologue his adversaries claimed him to be; if anything, a lame duck populist reformer would be a more suitable label. According to an opinion poll conducted by Mexican firm Mitofsky Consulting, his approval rating months prior to the coup was a dismal 25 percent, making him the least popular leaders of the Americas.

In November 2008, Zelaya began the push for the now infamous “Cuarta Urna” (Fourth Ballot Box) project. The stated intent behind “la cuarta” was to consult Hondurans, by means of a national referendum, on whether or not a fourth ballot box should be made available during the upcoming November 2009 election, giving the Honduran electorate an opportunity to support a revision of the present constitution by a Constitutional Committee. Such a body would be empowered to initiate the dissolution of both Congress and the Supreme Court, as they cannot coexist while a new constitution is drafted. The rationale behind the initiative was murky from the beginning. Several commentators, such as famed Honduran Human Rights Ombudsman Ramon Custodio, noticed parallels with similar referendums that had taken place in other ALBA member states. He expressed concern over Zelaya’s emulation of Chavez’s brand of caudillismo, claiming that Zelaya intended to use an eventual fourth ballot box to reform the constitution in a way that would allow him to serve a second term.

Zelaya’s intent was not diffused by the initial outburst of criticism by former Honduran presidents, congressmen from his own party, opposition lawyers, judges, political analysts and former and future presidential candidates. In response to all of them, Zelaya ramped up his offensive, using divisive rhetoric, populist measures and an expensive publicity campaign in order to win over potential votes. When faced with such opposition and legal impediments to the poll, Zelaya regularly delivered caustic barbs aimed at the dissident voices, while blatantly ignoring the spirit behind the checks and balances established by the constitution. The main points of contention have been Zelaya’s refusal to release the 2009 budget (due back in September 2008), and his threats of firing government officials if they did not publicly support the measure. But was all of this sufficient to justify what was soon to transpire at the hands of the patricidal members of the opposition?

The months leading up to June 28 found Zelaya increasingly facing off against Congress, the Judiciary, and the Armed Forces, none of them being indisputably reputable branches of the government nor tribunes of vigilant public rectitude. Then-Speaker Micheletti publicly called Zelaya’s actions irresponsible, claiming that more funds and hours were being spent preparing for the poll than running the country. He pointed to Honduras’ growing wave of violence, overwhelming poverty, crumbling infrastructure following the 2009 earthquakes, and the looming threat of the H1N1 pandemic as more pressing issues that had been ignored for far too long. Micheletti also cited Article 373 of the Honduran Constitution, which declares that only a two-thirds majority of the National Congress – that is 85 Congressmen out of the total 128 – can reform certain articles of the Constitution.

The Judiciary also condemned the “Cuarta Urna” initiative and all acts that led up to the potential June 28 vote as illegal. On March 25, the Attorney General’s office notified President Zelaya that the planned poll would be considered an abuse of power at the hands of the chief executive, and that, if carried out, he would have to submit to criminal charges, chief among them being treason. In late May, the Court for Contentious-Administrative Proceedings joined the fray by declaring that the “Cuarta Urna” was illegal and all activities relating to it should cease immediately. The President of the Supreme Court of Justice, Jorge Rivera, assented to the verdict of the lower tribunals by stating that “the decisions made by these tribunals must be obeyed, as we live under the rule of law.” Zelaya remained confrontational toward the legal dismantling of his project by making statements such as “The ‘Cuarta Urna’ goes and no one stops it” and, “Only God can stop the ‘Cuarta Urna’,” on several occasions.

On June 26, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal – the entity in charge of managing electoral materials, logistics and general oversight of elections in Honduras – found that Zelaya’s “Cuarta Urna” violated electoral law and the constitution, claiming that it was “a plebiscite (a vote) which can only be approved by the National Congress and Supreme Electoral Tribunal.” All materials that were to be used in the “Cuarta Urna,” which had been questionably printed and flown in from Venezuela, were also deemed illegal. Had it been merely a poll, carried out by a private company, such as Gallup or Zogby, that was managing the event, and not the Electoral Tribunal, Zelaya’s plan would basically pass constitutional muster. Instead, Zelaya hired groups sympathetic to him and the “Cuarta Urna” to manage the initiative and imported the voting material directly from Caracas. A series of questionably legal and barely objective moves by Zelaya did little to ease the rumors surrounding his ambitions. The now entrenched establishment’s agenda was not any clearer.

For the anti-Zelaya camp, the proverbial last straw was drawn on June 25 when President Zelaya asked Chief of Staff Romeo Vásquez Velásquez (a graduate of the ill-reputed School of the Americas) to safeguard and protect the materials that were to be used for the “Cuarta Urna.” General Vásquez refused, stating that by complying with such a request the Armed Forces would be acting outside of the legal framework of the Constitution they had sworn to protect. Shortly after, Zelaya removed General Vásquez from his post. Out of solidarity with Vásquez, the Minister of Defense and collective chiefs of the Honduran Army, Navy and Air Force soon resigned. Almost immediately, the Supreme Court of Justice invalidated Zelaya’s order, stating that Vásquez had “obeyed the Constitution by not participating on Sunday’s [June 28] illegal consultation. His dismissal was wrongful and arbitrary.” In a subsequent press conference, a Supreme Court Justice menacingly stated that if Zelaya did not follow the ruling, “civil and criminal charges would take place.” Zelaya, once again, ignored a ruling which was demonstrably legal and which turned out to be a burning and smoking tire hanging on the neck of Honduran democracy.

Manuel Zelaya’s actions and words may not deserve to be described as undemocratic, but they certainly make it difficult to avoid. Zelaya undoubtedly stepped outside of constitutional bounds and thus pushed an already crumbling establishment to its limit. He also resorted to name calling and vilified the voices of the institutions that earnestly opposed the “Cuarta Urna.” Yet at his most flagrant moment, he did not display sufficient disregard for democratic checks and balances and the rule of law to pose a fatal challenge to the country’s constitutionality and the limits of the powers of the Executive branch. Zelaya appears to have felt that the country was ready to follow after him wherever he led. Thus, he was wholly unconcerned with the barriers and restraints that a democratic system affords equally to all three independent branches of government. Through his brazen actions, Zelaya created an antagonistic environment of which he ultimately became a victim of at dawn on June 28. However, Zelaya’s opposition was ready to do the very thing they wanted to stop.


The Armed Forces and the Interim Government
Early in the morning of June 28, approximately 150 balaclava-clad soldiers encircled Manuel Zelaya’s house in Tegucigalpa. A dozen soldiers then broke into the President’s bedroom, from where he was taken at gunpoint to the airport and then to exile in Costa Rica. What happened that morning was by every definition a coup d’état by the Armed Forces of Honduras; the military felt that it had the necessary elite backing to forcefully remove a sitting president and took control, albeit provisionally, of a democratic republic. What took place was a gross violation of democratic norms by a military establishment against what many – but by no means a majority – of Hondurans saw as a rogue president. Although the authors of the coup believe they acted as a constitutional bulwark to chaos, they actually had unleashed a flood that most likely will turn around and drown them.

The Supreme Court claims that it ordered the Armed Forces to seize Zelaya in order to “defend the state of law” and “apply legal dispositions against those who expressed themselves publicly and acted against the disposition of basic law.” Nevertheless, with all of its mendacious language, its espoused reasoning does not legitimize the expulsion of Zelaya, cabinet members, and key allies that ensued. Under the rule of law, Zelaya should have been submitted to the proper legal proceedings that were recommended by some more moderate personages prior to his forced exile. Instead of acting as a protector of the Constitution, the Supreme Court dealt yet another heavy blow to the already fragile state of Honduran democracy. Now as the tribunals have issued several warrants for corruption, embezzlement, treason and drug trafficking, the question now becomes: Where were they before the military became involved?

The birth pangs of the Interim Government began at around noon on the 28th when Congress produced a letter of resignation allegedly signed by Manuel Zelaya dated June 25. Addressed to Roberto Micheletti, the body of the letter stated that due to “health problems,” “an eroding political base,” and “the polarizing political situation,” Zelaya and his cabinet effectively resigned so that “the wounds [could] be healed.” Congress unanimously accepted the letter as authentic even though some members of Congress were not present in the chamber at the time to validate their votes. In the absence of an acting Vice-President, the Speaker was next in line. The stout and not exactly popular Micheletti was sworn in as Interim President of Honduras amidst applause and “Vivas!” but the participants were unaware that they were invidiously participating in a death watch of a failed initiative.

In his truncated inaugural address, Micheletti vowed that the scheduled elections would take place on November 29 and that democracy had prevailed in Honduras. Micheletti echoed the Supreme Court by saying that the army had acted in defense of the Constitution, and what had occurred was a “constitutional succession.” Unfortunately, the Micheletti regime is not helping the country’s already tarnished international image. News of the twice-extended curfew (10pm – 5am), the censorship of television and radio stations sympathetic to Zelaya (CNN and Telesur have been intermittently blocked) and images of the June 29 and July 5 violent crackdowns on Pro-Zelaya protestors outside the Presidential Palace and Toncontin Airport have made headlines around the world, further isolating an already alienated country. The Micheletti regime has further distanced itself from its self-proclaimed image as a righteous and democratic government by suspending Habeas Corpus, the freedom of assembly and free passage amongst other constitutional guarantees. Additionally, former battalion 3-16 leader Billy Joya has assumed the role of security advisor in Micheletti’s cabinet. Parallels with 1980s Honduras are becoming regrettably clearer as each day passes. Particularly, damage is being done to Honduras’ fragile democratic planks by an interim government that has not shown itself to be a friend of its own constitution, and a military force that has worked outside the confines of the law.

The Rule of Law
Many of the sparks of Honduras’ current turmoil were most certainly lit by Zelaya, according to his critics who saw him as undermining democratic institutions during his presidency. However, even though part of the blame undoubtedly lies in Zelaya’s hands, the Armed Forces and the Interim Government must own up to their share of culpability. Aggressively wrestling control from Zelaya was not in any form a constitutional act; it was a coup, and no amount of semantics will hide this unsettling fact. More to the point, it was a coup crafted to bring down Zelaya because under presumed Chavez tutelage, the Honduran establishment was convinced that he was moving the country towards the ALBA yolk.

Despite disappointing a significant percentage of Hondurans, the rule of law must be unequivocally reaffirmed. Both Zelaya and Micheletti have pronounced themselves as constitutional democrats, while hardly acting as such. Both have demonstrated disrespect to their positions and it is time both sides demonstrate the equanimity and cooperation seldom displayed in the violence, crime, and corruption that have transpired in Honduras over the past decade. Zelaya’s newfound international flamboyance and Micheletti’s uncompromising countenance are only allowing the crisis to fester and intensify. There have already been bombs set off outside government buildings, private businesses and radio stations plunging Tegucigalpa into a heightened state of tension. On July 5, the military spilt the blood of the very people both factions pretend to protect. It is time the rule of law return to Honduras.

If Honduras is to grow peacefully out of the morass it now finds itself in and become a stronger nation in the process, the relevant actors must stand down from their calcified positions, letting the law do what it must and do away with the de facto Potemkin democracy. Manuel Zelaya must return to the office he was elected to serve, Micheletti’s Interim Government must be dismantled, and the Armed Forces should guarantee the safety of all, with many of its senior commanders required to retire. Immediately afterward, the Honduran courts ought to protect justice by enforcing the law and impeaching some of their colleagues for breaking it. When Manuel Zelaya is adjudged, he must be given a fair and transparent hearing for the alleged 18 crimes he committed prior to June 28.. But so too should the architects of the coup. Compromise and dialogue are necessities at this point, and they must take place so that the Republic of Honduras can come out of these trying times as a coherent and lawful state and make it to the November 29 elections in one piece.

Mr. Ayuso is currently in Honduras and can be reached by e-mail at ayust499@gmail.com
http://insidecostarica.com/special_reports/2009/2009-07/honduras_caudilismo.htm

Well written and well reasoned. I am afraid that the Honduran military used a hammer to swat a fly. Albeit, a fly that deserved swatting, only with all due process.

Talk about dreaming in technicolor!!

jesse,, i am much more qualified to make calls about Honduras.
i can see Honduras from my beach!

You betcha!!!

Or maybe you shouldn't, they can see you from theirs.
:-)

Well Palin can see Russia from her beach

thats my point,, i just gained loads of international diplomacy experience by geographical location only!
by golly!

You got my vote Barn.

And I can see Cuba from my beach! So there!!

July 9, 2009

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton,

We, the undersigned, are concerned by proposals by some in Washington's foreign policy circles to push for early elections as a solution to the crisis instigated by the illegal and anti-democratic coup d'etat in Honduras. Anything less than the urgent restoration of President Manuel Zelaya to office would be an usurpation of the will of the Honduran people. Following resolutions by the United Nations General Assembly and the Organization of American States calling for Zelaya's immediate and unconditional return to office, the U.S. must ensure his prompt restoration by enacting forceful economic sanctions against the regime.

Each day that the illegal coup regime remains in office further jeopardizes the capacity for Honduras to enjoy free and fair elections in November, let alone in an earlier time frame. Elections currently would take place under a coup regime that has suspended civil liberties, and where the conditions for free elections do not exist. Such an election would not have international legitimacy. Democracy has to be restored before a legitimate election can take place. It is also important to avoid making concessions of any kind to the coup government, as it would create a terrible precedent, showing other anti-democratically minded and power hungry individuals that it can be worthwhile to carry out a military coup in order to advance their political agendas.

Since illegally seizing office by abducting the president at gunpoint and putting him on a plane to Costa Rica, the coup regime has suspended civil liberties and treated the Honduran people as the enemy. They have revoked freedom of the press by imposing a media blackout, assaulted and detained journalists, clamped down on protests, detained hundreds of supporters of President Zelaya, and killed at least two people by firing on demonstrators.

The regime claims it acted in order to prevent an unconstitutional move by President Zelaya to extend his term. Yet an examination of the facts reveals this to be a dubious excuse for an assault on democratic institutions and the rule of law. President Zelaya's proposed survey would have been a non-binding poll of public support for an additional ballot - on whether a constitutional assembly should be created- in the November elections. The actual question read: "Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?"

Zelaya was not running for reelection in November, nor would he have been able to. Therefore, Zelaya's successor was always slated to be elected in November, to be inaugurated in January. Zelaya had also stated before June 28 that he did not desire reelection. Possible reelection was not the reason the military carried out the coup. They opposed Zelaya's policies, and they have at times been honest about their true motives: "It would be difficult for us, with our training, to have a relationship with a leftist government," Honduran army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza explained following the coup. "That's impossible."

There is one legal, just, and democratic solution to Honduras' current crisis: the swift restoration of President Zelaya and the imposition of economic sanctions-trade as well as aid, on the illegal regime. We call on the U.S. to take the lead in ensuring this outcome.

Sincerely,

Marc Becker
Associate Professor of Latin American History
Truman State University*

Blase Bonpane
Director
Office of the Americas

Michael Brun, PhD
Dept. Economics
Illinois State University

Ron Chilcote
Professor Economics
University of California Riverside

Aviva Chomsky
Professor of History and Coordinator, Latin American Studies
Salem State College

Noam Chomsky
Professor of Linguistics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Jaime Concha
Professor of Latin American Literature
University of California, San Diego

Luis Duno Gottberg
Associate Professor, Hispanic Languages and Literature Rice
University, Houston, TX

Steve Ellner
Professor Political Science
University of Oriente, Venezuela

Professor Raul Fernandez
Social Sciences
University of California, Irvine

Dana Frank
Professor of History
University of California, Santa Cruz

James Goldfarb Devine
Professor of Economics
Loyola Marymount University

Greg Grandin
Professor of History
Director of Graduate Studies
New York University

Mark Healey
Assistant Professor of History
University of California, Berkeley

Daniel Hellinger
Professor of Political Science
Webster University

Forrest Hylton
Assistant Professor of Political Science/Int'l. Relations
Universidad de los Andes (Colombia)

Misha Kokotovic
Associate Professor
Department of Literature
UC San Diego

Saul Landau
Professor Emeritus
California State University, Pomona

Jorge Mariscal
Director, Chicano/a-Latino/a Studies
University of California, San Diego

Luis Martín-Cabrera
Assistant Professor of Literature
University of California, San Diego

Gilda L. Ochoa
Associate Professor of Sociology and Chicana/o - Latina/o Studies
Pomona College

Tanalis Padilla
Associate Professor of History
Dartmouth College

Diana Paton
Reader in Caribbean History
Newcastle University, UK

Hector Perla
Assistant Professor, Latin American and Latino Studies
University of California, Santa Cruz

Deborah Poole
Professor, Anthropology
Johns Hopkins University

Suyapa G. Portillo Villeda
CFD Fellow, History Department
Pomona College

Gerardo Renique
Associate Professor, Department of History
City College of the City University of New York

William I. Robinson
Professor of Sociology and Global and International Studies
University of California-Santa Barbara

Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
Professor, Department of Chicano and Latino Studies
California State University, Long Beach

Dr. T.M. Scruggs
School of Music
University of Iowa

Victor Silverman
Department of History
Pomona College

Steve Striffler
Doris Zemurray Stone Chair in Latin American Studies
Professor of Anthropology
University of New Orleans

Christy Thornton
Director and Publisher N
orth American Congress on Latin America

Miguel Tinker Salas
Professor of History
Pomona College

Mark Weisbrot
Co-Director Center for Economic and Policy Research

John Womack, Jr.
Professor of History, Emeritus
Harvard University

Stephen Zunes
University of San Francisco

Academics in support of a leftist . . . .go figure!!

"And I can see Cuba from my beach! So there!!"

no you can't.
i am more qualified than you.

Another Honduran's view from within,

The following was written by Ian Merriam. Ian is a respected businessman in
Tegucigalpa that I’ve known for several years. It’s a very good synopsis of
what’s occurred.

*-*-*

The Chain of Events in the Honduras Crisis by Ian H. Merriam

March 23, 2009: President Zelaya passes an Executive Decree ordering a
National Survey asking citizens if they would approve a Constitutional
Assembly that would write and approve a new constitution. The Decree stated
that the National Institute of Statistics (INE) would carry the survey out.
However, he did not publish the decree in Honduras’ official newspaper
called La Gaceta as required by law.

This decree violated the following articles in the Constitution:

Article 255 for not having published the decree in the Gaceta.

Article 5 which states that only Congress (with a majority vote of 2/3) can
define a National Survey and NOT the Executive branch.

Article 5 which states that only the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) con
conduct/execute a National Survey and NOT the National Statistics Institute
(INE).

His actions implied intent to violate Article 374, a “Petreos” Article,
which states that only five articles in the entire constitution (with a
total of 378 articles) cannot be amended or reformed. Two of those five
articles refer to the duration of the presidential period (Art. 237) and the
prohibition of presidential reelection (Art. 4).

By May 27, 2009: The National Prosecutor, the Attorney General and the
Supreme Court had unanimously ruled the National Survey decree as illegal
and it was ANULLED.

June 5, 2009: President Zelaya’s lawyer appeals the ruling.

June 16, 2009: The Appeal Court unanimously confirms that the National
Survey decree is indeed illegal and therefore ANULLED.

The State Prosecutor’s Office (Ministerio Publico) informs the Armed Forces
that the National Survey is illegal and therefore, the Armed Forces must not
carry out its constitutionally- assigned responsibility to act as guardians
of the Public Survey ballots. The Armed Forces apply Article 323 that states
that no public official, whether civil or military, can be forced to comply
with an illegal order and thus refuse to carry out President Zelaya’s order
to safeguard the ballots and election/survey. That same day, the State
Prosecutor’s Office also advise President Zelaya and his entire cabinet of
the Appeals Court ruling against the decree.

June 19, 2009: The State Prosecutor’s Office formally advises President
Zelaya, a second time, that the National Survey is illegal.

June 25th, 2009: Only three days before his announced and illegal survey,
President Zelaya issues a second presidential decree again calling for a
National Survey. But this time, he goes all the way and publishes it in the
Gaceta. However, he makes changes to the wording in the decree. Instead of
ordering “a Public Opinion Survey,” as he had worded the previous decree, he
now changes the words to read, “Public Opinion Survey Convening a
Constitutional Assembly.” This changes the legal interpretation of this
decree entirely, and would’ve allowed for an immediate Constitutional
Assembly to convene and disintegrate the three powers defined in the
Constitution, effectively interrupting Constitutional Order.

With the publishing of this decree in the Gaceta, President Zelaya himself
kicks into motion Article 239 which states that “whomever changes or
attempts to change” article 4 (an unchangeable “petreos” article protected
by Article 374) relating to the alterability of the presidential position,
“will be immediately removed from public office” and lose his/her
constitutional powers.

NOTE: This is very important! As soon as the decree was published, President
Zelaya automatically stopped being president and became a regular citizen.

June 26, 2009: The Courts, along with the Attorney General and the Supreme
Electoral Tribunal, order the Armed Forces to confiscate all National Survey
ballots and voting material that had just arrived by plane.

That same day, in blatant disregard to all court rulings, Citizen Manuel
Zelaya gathers a group of protesters and proceeds to the Air Force warehouse
where the ballots had been impounded. He threatens with force and uses human
shields, risking other citizens’ lives. Calling on Article 59, which states
that the protection of “human life is the Constitution and the state’s
supreme responsibility/ obligation,” the Armed Forces yield to the mob and
allow Citizen Zelaya and his human shields to take the ballots by force.

Immediately, the Supreme Court issues an arrest warrant for Citizen Manuel
Zelaya for the crimes of (a) attempts against the form of government, (b)
treason to the country, (c) abuse of authority, and (d) usurpation of
functions belonging to other branches of government. The Supreme Court
orders the Armed Forces to serve this arrest warrant because according to
Article 272, the Armed Forces has the constitutionally- assigned
responsibility to maintain and protect the alterability of the presidential
office.

June 27, 2009: Country leaders meet intermittently throughout the day in an
effort to find an alternate means of resolving the situation without
recurring to an arrest that would incite unrest and possible violence within
certain segments of the population. In the meantime, the Armed Forces study
Citizen Zelaya’s agenda in order to determine the best moment to execute the
arrest with the least risk to the lives of Citizen Zelaya and the
Presidential Guards surrounding him.

June 28, 2009: Having found no better time for the arrest, at 5:45AM, the
Armed Forces capture Citizen Zelaya in his home. The arrest is successful
without any injuries or deaths on both sides. Citizen Zelaya is instructed
to get dressed, but wanting to be victimized, he refuses, only grabbing his
passport and wallet (with the presidential palace’s credit card, by the
way).

The Armed Forces decide to put Citizen Zelaya on the presidential plane and
take him to Costa Rica where he is left behind. The Armed Forces and whoever
else decided to expatriate Citizen Zelaya violated Article 102 which states
that “no Honduran can be expatriated or surrendered to a foreign
government.”

The Armed Forces is defending its decision by arguing that they again relied
on Article 59 (protection of human life as supreme obligation of the state).
They said that, in this case, breaking the law (art. 102) actually saved
lives since they felt that placing Citizen Zelaya in a Honduran prison
would’ve incited violence, unrest, and possible harm to Citizen Zelaya
himself. Nonetheless, the State Prosecutor’s Office has started an
investigation into this crime.

Per Article 242, when the President is absent and when the Vice President is
absent (or resigned in Honduras’ case), the third instance is the President
of Congress. Thus, the President of Congress, Roberto Micheletti, became
President of Honduras.

Points that are important to consider:

1. Petreos means “written in stone.” The petreos articles are defined in
Article 374. Article 374 protects these five petreos articles from ever
being amended NO MATTER WHAT. Presidential alterability (Art. 4) is one of
them and the four-year presidential period (Art. 237) is another.

2. Article 323 states that “all government officials are subject to the law
and that no one is above it.” The Constitution does not allow for immunity
to any government official including the President. Thus, if no immunity
exists, then there can be neither impeachment nor the process for it. Even a
President would have to be served with an arrest warrant just like any other
citizen.

3. International opinion is arguing that this is a coup d’état because we
ousted President Zelaya by force. But on June 28th, he was no longer
President Zelaya! He was ordinary Citizen Zelaya. We still broke the law
when we expatriated a citizen; but it wasn’t the president.

4. International opinion criticizes us for having used a Letter of
Resignation as opposed to having judged him based on his legal
transgressions and crimes. I’ll concede that mistake.

5. Further matters that complicated things:

a. U.S. Ambassador in Honduras, Hugo Llorens, slept right by the early
morning arrest and expatriation of Citizen Zelaya. He woke yelling, “Coup!
Coup!” without inquiring into the matter at 9AM.

b. It was another mistake to drop Citizen Zelaya off in Costa Rica, home to
a globally-respected and admired, Nobel Peace Prize President. Unfortunately
President Oscar Arias also condemned us without having heard our side of the
story and yelled, “Coup! Coup!” at 9:30AM. The world heard him.

c. By the time the Honduran Congress adjourned the assembly that day at
noon, the entire world had unilaterally and unjustly condemned us and the
word “Coup” now defined what we had done.

International organisms like the OAS and the UN will NOT go back on their
judgment and lose any more of their floundering public credibility. The OAS
and the UN have to “stick to their guns” while a poor, small country that
defended its constitution against the true corrupters of democracy (Chavez,
etc.) plunges into poverty and becomes a pariah state.

I have but one question that I would like to ask the international community
that is so adamant about not recognizing our existing government and is so
vociferous at demanding that Honduras reinstate our criminal ex President
Zelaya:

What part of our Constitution would you force us to change, amend or erase
so that we can reinstate Manuel Zelaya as President of Honduras without
breaking the law?

July 8, 2009

Just another piece of information,

Sen. Cornyn Urges President Obama, Secretary Clinton To Stand With The Honduran People To Preserve The Democratic Process
Wednesday, July 8, 2009

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, today met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and urged her to give equal time to both sides of the current conflict in Honduras, ensure that the Honduran Constitution is not undermined, and that the health of the Honduran democracy and its rule of law are preserved. He will be following up in a letter with Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., echoing the same requests.
Sen. Cornyn also met today with several Honduran leaders, including two former presidents, six current members of the Honduran Congress who supported the deposition of President Manuel Zelaya, and two individuals who helped to draft the 1982 Honduran Constitution.

"The United States has stood and continues to stand as a beacon of freedom in every corner of the globe. Like our own nation, Honduras adopted a constitution designed to ensure our Presidents are never above the law. Today I met with two original authors of the Honduran Constitution, which places strict limits on executive power and limits the President to one term. These constitutional tenets are highly significant to the Honduran people due to the nation's unique history concerning military rule. I am very troubled by President Obama's call for the return of deposed President Zelaya to power, as his return would directly undermine the democratic process and the Constitution of Honduras. President Obama and Secretary Clinton must stand with the Honduran people, not with Hugo Chavez and other leftist dictators, and I reiterated these concerns to Sec. Clinton when I met with her this morning. I'm hopeful Costa Rica's upcoming mediation will be successful and the health of Honduras' democracy will be preserved."

Sen. Cornyn serves on the Finance, Judiciary and Budget Committees. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee's Immigration, Refugees and Border Security subcommittee. He served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge

The Honduran Constitution doesn't have an impeachment clause. If Zelaya returns he will probably be arrested and stand trial for violating the Constitution. That is the "democratic", i.e. rule of law solution to this problem. If Cornyn truly believes in freedom, democracy and the rule of law he'd keep his mouth shut and not use this issue to take a shot at the President and his administration. What Cornyn is advocating goes against the very standards he claims to support. Besides, if it makes this guy unhappy the OAS, US and UN must be doing something right:

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-17602--12-12--.html

BS!

What a joke (a terrible, terrible one). These people (Obama and Clinton) have no use for the US Constitution, let alone any respect for the Constitution of the Republic of Honduras.

Just a surmise, but I bet that if the ousted president of Honduras had been a right-wing wannabe dictator, H20dog would have no problem with the fact that the Honduran military was fulfilling the constitutional role assigned to them when they obeyed the directives of the Congress and the Supreme Court.

Who said anything about the US Constitution? Get a grip.

Don't go off on that left wing right wing horsesh5t. If you actually read my post you'd notice I suggest he go back to his country, be arrested and stand trial.....in accordance with the Honduran Constitution. Amazingly Mel Martinez (oh sh5t, a Republican) agrees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxcY1WWgmz8

he's cute when he gets all testy

I expect such a simple response from a guy with the education of an Ethiopian sheep herder.

Ethnic profilng?? That's beneath you!!

OK, maybe just a guy with a degree from a trade school in southern Arkansas.

Whomever said that "Obama es un negrito quien ni siquiera sabe donde queda Tegucigalpa" hit the nail on the head, was spot-on etc. Thank-God someone with a clue got to Hillary (who is English challenged, much less Spanish speaking) before she opened her clueless piehole, and gave Arias a chance, (poor "little brown man" that he is). The Obama "administration" read: obedient puppet; is adept only at distracting public opinion by manipulating media to a dumbed-down populace, and we should be desperate about um, "global warming"? Just re-direct, it's easy now, public-schoolers have been dumbed-down since the 1970's. It has not occured to any of these mindless leemurs that the Ahmadinejads, Il Jungs and Chavezes of today only had the cojones to become vociferous nuisances until we put a "community organizer" in Washington.

Typical West Coast elitist!!

Modesto Junior College?

Now that's just mean!!!

I think you may be out of your league, Sparky.

Just in! (only in San Francisco)
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/07/12/Same-sex-penguin-couple-split/UPI-56931247417354/

(30 second hijack)

How is Pepper handling it?
Its a two way street yaknow!

Just got back from 3 weeks in Honduras.
Not a vacation wonderland!
Maya Air refused to come back and pick us up for the return trip ticket and I had to pay Taca 450.us to Salvador and spend the night.
Good to be home
Maya Air didn't refund, compensate or apologize for the stranding me.

elbert, other than transit problems, how was the rest of the trip? I ask specifically because Roatan is on my Xmas list.

Hope things work out with Maya.

The Bay Islands are subject to the curfews and lock downs as well,
however they don't have the violence that the mainland does.
You may find yourself stuck because the airports close and they don't run the ferrys to the islands either. I would make sure this little coup/noncoup is over before going.
And for sure don't go Maya Air , they wimped out even when the other airlines where running.
cost me about 1000.us extra to get out of the country because they stood us up.

Well . . heck . . .guess I'll look into Bonaire. Thanks.

I've been following the "issues" in Roatan very closely. Several message boards, and folks I've commicated with on Roatan, say it's business as usual. Mainland problems don't have much impact on the Bay Islands. No problems except lack of tourists. You can find flights from the U.S. direct to Roatan to avoid any mainland delays. Not sure from Canada.
Elbert, did you actually go to Roatan? If the situation is different than I've heard I may have to reconsider also.

As I understand it, to get to any of the Bay Islands from outside Honduras you have to route via the mainland. Is that so? If so, I can see lots of problems getting there and back, regardless of what it's like once you're there.

As Isle just mentioned, you can find flights direct to Roatan. Continental does on Fri & Sat and perhaps other days as well.

No, it's not so Peter. Delta also flys non-stop from Atlanta to Roatan on Saturdays. Taca routes through San Salvador to Roatan, not sure which days.

Agreed with Isle and klc, flights are direct from Houston on Continental, which is the flight I always take.

My contacts have been telling me things are not radically different on the island, but I hadn't specifically asked about curfews, etc. I have been there before when there was a major police presence (big guns, stopping and searching people). It does put a damper on fun things. On the other hand, it probably also puts a damper on random gun play and robberies.

You can get direct flights from Canada to Roatan with Skyservice or connecting flights via Houston with Continental or Atlanta with Delta. I think Continental flys 4 days a week during the winter. No need for Canadians to go via the mainland with American or Taca.

Not out of Calgary, as far as I know. Still leaves me with the most direct route through Houston on Continental.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1335534.html
Does this sound screwed up or what.
November election is going to be interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE4sfiiBSDg
The Election is over and Mel seems to have lost but not going quietly.