State Dept. “Mr. Micheletti Taking a Leave of Absence . . . And Expect Its Prompt Implementation”
2009 November 20
Leave a comment
Wood’s explanation of Micheletti’s upcoming absence was phrased oddly if this was truly a spur of the moment decision by Micheletti. Using the word ”implementation” suggests that this is part of the PLAN and that the “get out of Dodge” step has been in the playbook all along.
Robert Wood, Spokesman
November 20, 2009
Honduras Excerpt:
QUESTION: Yes, on Honduras, you want to bring us up to date on the latest developments and whether or not you think Mr. Zelaya might return to the – any kind of power before the election?
MR. WOOD: Well, as I think many of you are aware, there was a statement made last night by Mr. Micheletti about taking a leave of absence. And we welcome that he is going to take a leave of absence and expect its prompt implementation. This will allow some breathing space for the process in Honduras to go forward. And so the announcement will also allow for the people of Honduras to focus on the elections. And so that’s really where we are.
QUESTION: When you say you welcome, what do you mean by you welcome? Means that you are happy or – that he’s taking a leave of absence?
MR. WOOD: I mean we welcome.
Yes.
QUESTION: (Inaudible), right?
MR. WOOD: Anything else on Honduras?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. WOOD: Dave –
QUESTION: I mean, as far as you’re concerned, this is – is this a good solution now? I mean, no longer does the United States expect Zelaya to come back or –
MR. WOOD: Well, I think what would be a good solution for the situation, the crisis in Honduras, is for the implementation of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accords. That, I think, is what needs to happen now. And the sooner that we can get that implementation, the sooner we will get to what we hope will be a resolution to this crisis.
Jill, you had –
QUESTION: And who runs the country while Mr. Micheletti is on vacation?
MR. WOOD: That’s a good question. I don’t really know the answer to that. I’m sure there is one and I’ll try and get one.
QUESTION: Zelaya said that he wants to delay the elections. He says that in this situation, the elections cannot be take – cannot be done.
MR. WOOD: Well, there is an accord that President Zelaya and his team and Mr. Micheletti and his team agreed to. And we think if we are going to address the issues of restoring democracy, if we’re going to deal with the the question of reconciliation, that the best way to do this is to move forward with the implementation of the accord. It’s in the best interests of the Honduran people. The Honduran people want to end this crisis. And as we’ve said, one of the most important things that needs to happen first is the formation of this national unity government. And we want to see that happen as soon as possible.
Two articles:
The first concerns the coup regime’s intention to “disarm” citizens before the polls. This has all sorts of bad possibilities such as pre-emptive custody, illegal searches, and planting guns where their were none. And, of course, through this disarm project, the regime is re-casting a Resistance movement that has been non-violent for 150 days into gun-toting thugs.
The second article is about Micheletti suggesting he may step down from the “presidency” from November 25 to December 2 so that everyone can concentrate solely on the election. Well, it sure would be more comfortable for the US to proudly endorse the result of the election if blustery Bobby was on vacation. Yet, his “checking out” may be to create plausible deniability in a couple of key areas: if there are allegations of voting fraud and if the Honduran military/Honduran police go super rogue — neither of which is beyond the realm of possibility.
Stay tuned.
Honduras regime seeks to disarm citizens ahead of polls
(AFP) – 49 minutes ago
TEGUCIGALPA — The Honduran de facto regime on Friday ordered citizens to turn in their weapons in a bid to avert violence around disputed presidential elections to be held at the end of the month.
Ousted President Manuel Zelaya has called on his supporters to boycott the November 29 national elections after crisis talks failed to restore him to power beforehand — in order to finish his single term that ends in January.
The interim regime led by Roberto Micheletti said it would disarm citizens who risked disrupting the elections in a nation where violent street gangs operate with many weapons left over from decades of civil wars in the region.
“We’ve agreed a general disarmament from November 23 so that no one will harm the lives of others or provoke other actions against the electoral process,” Press Minister Pineda Ponce told local television.
The disarmament would include temporary confiscations from people who held weapon permits, Ponce said.
Zelaya has called for street protests — which have been met with military crackdowns — since he was sent away from the presidency in his pajamas on June 28. He has been besieged in the Brazilian embassy since secretly returning in September.
Micheletti said Thursday he would briefly step down from November 25 to December 2 in an apparent bid to boost the international legitimacy of the polls.
The United States, the country’s main military and economic backer, and Panama have said they will support the polls, but regional powerhouses Brazil and Argentina have said they will not recognize the results.
The Honduran Congress and Supreme Court, business leaders and the military all backed Zelaya’s ouster, accusing him of seeking to change the constitution to stay in office beyond the one-term limit.”
|
|||||||
From Honduras embassy blog
The following article from El Tiempo (translated into English) suggests that the coup regime is finalizing its strategy for “protecting” the November 29 election from “interference” by those who promise to boycott. No doubt, the Michelettis will use election law, interpreted very broadly, in order to cover widespread state-sponsored repression.
The massive plan to boycott will leave the Michelettis with an illegitimate election because of ridiculously low voter turnout, but the US has the script prepared already for the State Department’s, Ian Kelly,to declare on November 30 that it was “a free and fair election with little or no irregularities reported.” The Michelettis will ride this election wave out and cruise into shore fairly easily.
And, the Honduran shock troops will gleefully wreak havoc on the population as it begins to chip away at what is its longer-term problem: a Resistance that won’t go away and, by its sheer numbers, poses a threat to the oligarchy well beyond the election.
ROBERTO MICHELETTI: “HUNDREDS OF FOREIGNERS COMING IN TO BOYCOTT ELECTIONS”
(translation from Honduran newspaper El Tiempo, Nov. 16, 2009)
De-facto interim “president” Roberto Micheletti said that hundreds of foreigners have been entering the country to boycott the elections scheduled for November 29th. “We have knowledge of this. Our military, supported by our allies and friends, have initiated an investigation that has secured information about people from Venezuela or Nicaragua coming here to try to cause trouble to the electoral process”, said Micheletti.
“There is a security plan to protect the population in general, for them to vote without fear, so that they can elect their new authorities”.
Micheletti recalled that the Electoral Law in its article 209 stated that, “Will be sanctioned with a penalty of four years in prison whoever, without legitimate authorization, seeks to impede other persons, through violence, the exercise of their electoral rights”.
A secondary law expresses that in addition to the electoral crimes that will be sanctioned with prison, will be also punished with prison time all persons who by any means impede access to the electoral locations that are needed for the functioning of the elections.
Calls to boycott the elections have been made by “sectors of society, as well as foreigners who have entered the country”, for example “the leaders of the group called Popular Resistance, which has its intent to prevent the election”.
Honduran Dictatorship Is A Threat to Democracy In the Hemisphere
November 19, 2009
Honduran Dictatorship Is A Threat to Democracy In the Hemisphere
By Mark Weisbrot
A small group of rich people who own most of Honduras and its politicians enlist the military to kidnap the elected president at gunpoint and take him into exile. They then arrest thousands of people opposed to the coup, shut down and intimidate independent media, shoot and kill some demonstrators, torture and beat many others. This goes on for more than four months, including more than two of the three months legally designated for electoral campaigning. Then the dictatorship holds an “election.”
Should other countries recognize the results of such an election, to be held on November 29th? Latin America says absolutely not; the United States is saying, well, “yes we can”- if we can get away with it.
“There has been a sharp rise in police beatings, mass arrests of demonstrators and intimidation of human rights defenders,” since President Zelaya slipped back into Honduras and took refuge in the Brazilian embassy, wrote Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch, the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and human rights groups worldwide have also condemned the violence and repression perpetrated by the Honduran dictatorship.
On November 5, the 25 nations of the Rio Group, which includes virtually all of Latin America, declared that they would not recognize the results of the November 29th elections in Honduras if the elected President Manuel Zelaya were not first restored.
Why is it that Latin American governments can recognize this threat to democracy but Washington cannot? One reason is that many of the governments are run by people who have lived under dictatorships. President Lula da Silva of Brazil was imprisoned by the Brazilian dictatorship in the 1980s. President Michele Bachelet of Chile was tortured in prison under the brutal Pinochet dictatorship that was installed with the help of the Nixon administration. The presidents of Bolivia, Argentina, Guatemala, and others have all lived through the repression of right-wing dictatorships.
Nor is this threat merely a thing of the past. Just two weeks ago the President of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo, had to fire most of the military leadership because of credible evidence that they were conspiring with the political opposition. This is one of the consequences of not reversing the Honduran military coup of June 28th.
Here in the United States we have been subjected to a relentless campaign of lies and distortions intended to justify the coup, which have been taken up by Republican supporters of the dictatorship, as well as by hired guns like Lanny Davis, a close associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the biggest lie, repeated thousands of times in the news reporting and op-eds of the major media, was that Zelaya was overthrown because he was trying to extend his term of office. In fact, the non-binding referendum that Zelaya proposed had nothing to do with term limits. And even if this poll of the electorate had led eventually to a new constitution, any legal changes would have been far too late for Zelaya to stay in office beyond January 29.
Another surreal part of the whole political discussion has been the attempt to portray Zelaya, who was merely delivering on his campaign promises to the Honduran electorate, as a pawn of some foreign power – conveniently chosen to be the much-demonized Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The anti-communist hysteria of 1950s McCarthyism is still the model for these uncreative political hacks.
What a disgrace it will be to our country if the Obama team follows through on its current strategy and recognizes these “elections!” It’s hard to imagine a stronger statement than that human rights and democracy in this hemisphere count for zero in the political calculations of this administration.
While keeping one eye on Honduras, you might train the other eye on the US’ provocative military base plan in the land of its “enfant terrible,” Colombia.
Fidel is one of the clearest thinkers on the planet and the best at breaking down issues, especially those associated with the US and its unquenchable imperial thirst.
acnnews 2
Reflections by Fidel Castro
The Bolivarian Revolution and Peace
I know Chavez well, and no one could be more reluctant than him to allow a showdown between
the Venezuelan and Colombian peoples leading to bloodshed. These are two fraternal peoples,
the same as Cubans living in the east, center and west end of our island. I find no other way
to explain the close relationship between Venezuelans and Colombians.
The slanderous Yankee accusation that Chavez is planning a war against neighboring
Colombia led an influential paper of that country to run a story last Sunday, November 15,
under the headline “War Drums.” It was a pejorative and insulting editorial against the
Venezuelan President asserting, among other things, that “Colombia should take very seriously
the gravest threat to its national security in more than seven decades as it comes from a
President with a military background…”
It goes on to say that: “The reason is the growing potential for a provocation that can go
from an incident along the border to an attack on civilian and military facilities in
Colombia.”
Further on the editorial claims it is likely “…that Hugo Chavez intensifies his attacks
against the ‘scrawny’ –the sobriquet he applies to his oppositionists—and tries to remove from
regional and local governments those who contradict him. He already did it with the Mayor of
Caracas…and now he wants to try with the governors of the states sharing borders with Colombia
who refuse to be under his rule…a clash with Colombian forces or the accusation that the
paramilitary plan to conduct actions within Venezuelan territory could be the pretext required
by Chavez’s regime to suspend constitutional rights.”
Such words can only serve to justify the United States’ aggressive plans and the blatant
treachery of the Venezuelan oligarchy and counterrevolution to their Homeland.
Coinciding with the release of that editorial, the Bolivarian leader had published his
weekly column known as “Chavez’s lines,” where he analyzed the shameless concession of seven
US military bases in Colombia, a country that shares about 1,281 miles of border with
Venezuela.
In his article, the President of the Bolivarian Republic was very clear and brave in
explaining his position.
“…I said it this Friday at the rally for peace and against the US military bases in
Colombian territory: It is my duty to appeal to all of you, men and women, to defend Bolivar’s
Homeland, our children’s Homeland… Our Homeland is free today and we shall defend it with our
lives. Never again will Venezuela be anybody’s colony; never again will it kneel down before
any invader or empire…the extremely serious and transcendental problem in Colombia cannot be
overlooked by the Latin American governments…”
Later on, he added some important concepts: “…the entire ‘gringo’ war arsenal included in
the agreement responds to the concept of extraterritorial operations…it turns the Colombian
territory into an enormous Yankee military enclave…the greatest threat to peace and security
in the South American region and in Our America.”
“The agreement…prevents Colombia from offering anyone security and respect; not even
Colombian men and women. A country that has lost its sovereignty and become an instrument of
the ‘new colonial power’ envisioned by our Liberator cannot offer such guarantees.”
Chavez is a true revolutionary, a profound and sincere thinker, a courageous and restless
worker. He did not win power through a coup d’état. He rebelled against the repression and
genocide unleashed by the neoliberal governments that surrendered the country’s huge natural
resources to the United States. He endured incarceration; he matured and developed his ideas.
He did not win power with weapons despite his military background.
It is his merit to have taken the difficult path of a profound social Revolution starting
out from the so-called representative democracy and an absolute freedom of expression, at a
time when the most powerful media resources of the country were –they still are—in the hands
of the oligarchy and at the service of the empire’s interests.
In just 11 years, Venezuela has achieved the greatest educational and social progress
attained by any country in the world, despite the coup d’état and the destabilization plans
and smearing campaigns implemented by the United States.
The empire did not decree an economic blockade on Venezuela, –as it did in the case of
Cuba– after the failure of its sophisticated actions against the Venezuelan people because it
would have meant blockading itself given its foreign energy dependence. But it has not
abandoned its purpose to do away with the Bolivarian process and the generous support this
gives the Caribbean and Central American peoples in terms of oil resources, and its extensive
trade relations with South America, China, Russia and numerous countries of Asia, Africa and
Europe. Large segments of the population in every continent sympathize with the Bolivarian
Revolution whose relations with Cuba are especially upsetting for the empire which for half a
century has sustained a criminal blockade against our country. Through the ALBA, Bolivar’s
Venezuela and Marti’s Cuba are promoting a new type of relationship and exchange on rational
and fair basis.
The Bolivarian Revolution has been particularly generous with the Caribbean countries in
times of an exceptionally grave energy crisis.
In the current new stage, the Venezuelan Revolution is facing entirely new problems which
did not exist almost exactly 50 years ago, when our Revolution triumphed in Cuba.
At that time, drug-trafficking, organized crime, social violence and the paramilitaries
were barely known. The United States had yet to become the huge drug market that capitalism
and the consumer society have turned it into. It was not so difficult for the Revolution to
fight drug-trafficking in Cuba and to prevent the country from being drawn to its production
and consumption.
Today, such scourges have brought to Mexico, Central America and South America a growing
tragedy which is far from beaten. The unequal terms of trade, protectionism and the plundering
of their natural resources has been compounded by drug-trafficking and the violence of
organized crime that underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment and the huge US drug market have
created in the Latin American societies. The incompetence of that imperial and wealthy nation
to prevent drug-trafficking and abuse has paved the way for the cultivation in many places of
Latin America of plants whose value as raw material for drug production often exceeds that of
the rest of the farm products, thus creating a very serious social and political quagmire.
In Colombia, the paramilitary is today the imperialism’s frontline force to combat the
Bolivarian Revolution.
It is precisely thanks to his military background that Chavez knows that the struggle
against drug-trafficking is a vulgar pretext used by the United States to justify a military
agreement that fully responds to the US post-cold war strategic concept of extending its world
domination.
The air bases, the means, the operational rights and total impunity granted to the Yankee
military and civilian personnel by Colombia in its own territory have nothing to do with
fighting drug cultivation, production and trafficking. This is currently a world problem
spreading not only to South American countries, but also to Africa and other regions. It
already prevails in Afghanistan despite the massive presence of the Yankee troops.
Drugs should not be used as a pretext to set up bases, invade countries and bring
violence, war and plundering to Third World nations. This is the worst environment to sow good
qualities among the people and to bring education, healthcare and development to other nations.
Those who think that division between Venezuelans and Colombians can lead to the success
of their counterrevolutionary plans are deceiving themselves. Many of the best and most humble
workers in Venezuela are Colombians; the Revolution has given them and their immediate family
education, healthcare, employment, the right to citizenship and other benefits. Together,
Venezuelans and Colombians shall defend the great Homeland of the Liberator of the Americas;
together, they shall fight for peace and freedom. The thousands of Cuban doctors,
educators and other collaborators carrying out their internationalist duty in Venezuela shall
be with them!
Fidel Castro Ruz
November 18, 2009
2:30 PM
Cuban News Agency
www.cubanews.ain.cu
ainnews@ain.cu
SouthCom: Washington Develops its Operations in Soto Cano Airbase in Honduras
By Arnold August, November 18, 2009.
According to a November 17 press release, http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/ussouthcom-cs-selects-harris-corporation–million-services-program-ites-s/ Harris Corporation, an international communications and information technology company, was awarded the U.S. Southern Command (SouthCom) Command, Control, Communications and Computer Systems operations and maintenance program for Joint Task Force (JTF) Bravo at Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras. This five-year task order contract has a base year plus four one-year options and is valued at $38 million — including all options.
This critical infrastructure program supports the Commander of JTF-Bravo — the Commander of all U.S. military operations in Central America in the execution of SouthCom’s strategy to build Partner Nation Capacity. It is intended to bolster security, stability and prosperity in the Americas. This responsibility, according to the press release, encompasses:
- Advancing new visions of the U.S. Government and institutions of the region.
- Reducing sources of conflict and tension.
- Promoting partnership in times of need.
- Empowering initiatives to thwart narcotics trafficking and other transnational threats.
Harris is an international communications and information technology company serving government and commercial markets worldwide. Headquartered in Melbourne, Florida, the company has approximately $5 billion of annual revenue and more than 15,000 employees — including nearly 7,000 engineers and scientists.
As the Honduran people are developing their struggle to boycott the fraudulent November 29 elections and in favor of a Constituent Assembly, Washington is already arrogantly stepping up its post-November 29 program. For imperialism, it is business as usual, irrespective of the positions, sacrifices and feelings of the vast majority of people in Honduras.
This latest decision under the Obama Administration provides the people an opportunity to see once again what constitute the new visions of the U.S. Government and institutions of the region. They are not new, but the same imperialist vision of domination and interference by the US in the entire hemisphere south of the Rio Grande. The only thing that is new is the appearance with the goal of having the peoples of the region and the world accept the old policies but disguised in new rhetoric.
As far as the above-stated goal of reducing sources of conflict and tension, if the US was really interested in this, President Zelaya would have been reinstated a long time ago; the repression by the US trained military in Honduras and Micheletti would not only have been stopped, but the guilty would have been tried and punished for the crimes committed against the people of Honduras.
However, after all, this is the same Washington which recently concluded the agreement with Columbia for the establishment of the seven military bases there.
STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING
NOVEMBER 18, 2009
IAN KELLY, SPOKESMAN
Honduras excerpt:
QUESTION: Ian, on Honduras, the parliament seems to have put off until after the election a decision on whether Zelaya will be restored. What does that do for the possible credibility of these elections?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, let me give you kind of an update of where we are. Craig Kelly, of course, has been in Tegucigalpa. He’s been down there to help support the implementation of the accord. He held a series of meetings down there to support the OAS efforts to have it fully implemented. He’s met with President Zelaya and he met with the de facto leader Mr. Micheletti. He told us that these were very frank and open talks.
Regarding the reports on the Honduran lawmakers will not decide on whether or not to restore Zelaya until after the elections, according to the accord, the – it called for the national congress to issue a pronouncement on the restoration of a democratically elected authority, Mr. Zelaya. As you know, it never stipulated a timetable for the congressional action. All along, we’ve called on the congress to act expeditiously in the spirit of the accord. We believe that steady steps towards the implementation of the accord will enhance the prospects for transparent, free, and open elections that will ultimately resolve this crisis and allow Honduras to rejoin the international community of nations.
Another one of these important steps towards the implementation of the accord and resolving this crisis is the formation of the – of a government of national unity. So that’s also an important component to this.
But since the accord never actually gave any kind of deadline by – to have this vote by the national congress, scheduling the vote on December 2nd doesn’t necessarily – isn’t necessarily inconsistent with the accord.
QUESTION: What – I’m sorry. That’s – you’ve just opened your – this is – they’re going to have a field day with this. So it’s okay with you if five years from now, they go and come back and say, all right, yeah, Zelaya can go – he’s restored, when you can’t – you can’t be restored after you’re voted out of office if you’re not – he’s not even running.
MR. KELLY: That’s right. I mean, he – his term ends the end of January.
QUESTION: Yeah. And so it’s okay – so it’s okay with you, and you’ll – it will be all right and you’ll accept the results of the election, if they – even if they don’t put him back in when you –
MR. KELLY: Well, he’s not running. He’s not running for the election.
QUESTION: Yeah, but he’s going to be out – he’s effectively out of office. I mean, talk about – that’s the lamest of lame ducks. He’s not – he is – I’m confused. You no longer think that he has to be restored before he is voted out of office?
MR. KELLY: Well, it has been a very strong principle of ours that in order for the country to be reconciled, there has to be a restoration of the democratically elected president. That implies that he has to be restored before the end of his term, okay?
QUESTION: So basically –
QUESTION: All right. So 10 minutes – 10 minutes before the end of his term?
QUESTION: December – until the end of January it can be.
MR. KELLY: Look, I mean, clearly, he has to be restored in a timely way. And I don’t think we’ve ever said anything but that.
QUESTION: Well –
MR. KELLY: But what we’re focused on is the implementation of the accord. I mean, that’s – and – I think that’s what everybody has to be focused on is. And that’s what Craig Kelly was down there for to make sure that it’s done step by step. And there are a number of steps that have to take place. Now, the national congress has set a date to pronounce on this, to pronounce on this issue of the – what – I mean, the accord calls it a pronouncement on the reversion of the executive branch, a pronouncement on the – whether or not Mr. Zelaya should return.
This is a – this is basically – it’s a – we have a lot of interests, obviously. This is – the Organization of American States have a – has a lot of interest in having a government down there that reflects the will of the people and having reconciliation between the Zelaya camp and the Micheletti camp.
QUESTION: Am I correct in thinking that there’s –
MR. KELLY: And the accord is the best to do this.
QUESTION: Am I correct in thinking that there is no way to guarantee that this pronouncement will even restore him to office?
MR. KELLY: It’s up to the congress.
QUESTION: They could come –
MR. KELLY: The both sides –
QUESTION: — back and say no, he can’t come back and –
MR. KELLY: They could come back. I mean, that is –
QUESTION: Well, what happens then?
MR. KELLY: Well, we’ll – let’s see then.
QUESTION: Then you walk into –
MR. KELLY: It’s now. It’s not then.
QUESTION: Ian, will the election –
MR. KELLY: It’s a Honduran crisis. And we want to make sure that –
QUESTION: Well –
MR. KELLY: — the Hondurans are able to sit down –
QUESTION: — you inserted yourself into it –
MR. KELLY: We have.
QUESTION: — quite – so it’s no longer just a Honduran crisis. You’re involved.
MR. KELLY: Of course, we’re involved. We are involved because we want to be involved, because it’s important for us to be involved. We’re involved because they want us to be involved.
QUESTION: Ian, the election will enjoy international support, including that of the United States, even if at the time they vote the Congress hasn’t decided?
MR. KELLY: It all depends on how the vote is conducted. It depends on how the campaign is conducted. We will decide how to pronounce on the election when we see how it is conducted.
QUESTION: Thank you.
A long, but excellent analysis from Arnold August.
Honduras: Consistent Positions by both Sides Elevate the
Constituent Assembly as the Solution
By Arnold August, November 17, 2009.
One side is the barely veiled alliance between Washington and Micheletti. The other side consists of the Constitutional Zelaya Government, the National Front against the Coup d’Etat and the principal former presidential candidate linked to the latter who has decided to boycott the November 29 elections. The candidate had formally taken his final position to boycott the elections once it was clear that Micheletti refused to reinstate Zelaya as the president despite the accords reached to that effect.
One can examine the position of the USA/Honduran oligarchy alliance by looking back, from the perspective of November, to the initial reaction of Washington towards the June 28 coup. It tells us a lot about the stance from that memorable but regrettable day to date. It is consistent in its essential. Initial reactions are quite telling. They set the stage for the future and provide the essence of a position which cannot be subsequently covered up by superficially changing words and actions.
On June 28, President Obama stated that he was concerned about “the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya.” He then called on “all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law.” He terminated with the appeal for “dialogue.”
On June 28, Hillary Clinton basically stated the same position. There are certain features which stand out in Washington’s stance and which continue to date:
1. Placing the de facto regime on the same footing as the forcefully expelled Zelaya.
2. For appearances sake, intermittently, stating that Zelaya is president.
3. Highlighting dialogue as a solution. This is a tactic for stalling, buying time on behalf of the coup leading up to elections to legitimize the coup.
4. Refusing to call June 28 a coup on all occasions.
However, some may argue that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the State Department did in fact from time to time call June 28 a coup. Yes, this is the case, but depending on the circumstances. We have seen above how Obama skilfully avoided calling it a coup on June 28. The next day a joint press conference with Columbia President Uribe took place.
Even though Uribe is a strong ally of the USA, his government still joined with the other South American countries at the time to denounce the coup and demand the return of President Zelaya. Colombia is a member of the Rio Group as well as UNASUR both of which together include the vast majority of South American nations. These regional bodies have taken and continue to take a strong stand against the military coup and in favour of the unconditional restoration of Zelaya. In this June 29 press conference with Uribe, Obama being aware of the audience, called June 28 a “coup” and stated that Zelaya is the “democratically elected President.”
On July 7, in Moscow, Russia which is one of the countries contributing towards pulling apart the unipolar world and being part of the new multi-polarity, Obama deemed fit to call for the restoration of Zelaya, but this time did not mention a coup.
In another set of circumstances, at a joint press conference with conservative Canadian Prime Minister Harper who more openly favors the Micheletti regime, the joint statement indicates that Obama and Harper “restated U.S. and Canadian support for the peaceful restoration of democratic and constitutional order in Honduras and called on all parties to accept the San José Accord.”
Once again, there is no mention of a coup; the name Zelaya is not even to be found anywhere. It is another indication of how the Two Track policies (the hard-line Track I as symbolized by Harper and previously by the Bush era, and Track II, adopted by Obama) exhibit no real contradiction between each other. The objective of both Tracks is the same. It is merely a question of which one of the two is considered to be more effective in reaching the goal of domination over South America.
On August 10, in Guadalajara, Mexico, the Joint Statement by North American Leaders (Obama, Harper and Calderón) resulted in another variety of phrases. In these circumstances, the joint statement mentions the coup, (they did after all meet south of the Rio Grande) but even then the name Zelaya is nowhere to be seen. In place of conveniently omitting Zelaya, we are left with the usual vague mention of accords, the restoration of democratic governance and rule of law.
Washington at times does not mention the word coup but at other times it is explicitly stated that on June 28 a coup did take place. Yes, this is true, but never a—military—coup. This is not a minor issue. I have already documented in detail how the State Department, from June 29 to early August, had avoided dealing with whether or not the US was to legally classify the coup as a military coup according to Section 7008 of the 2009 Appropriations Act, approved by the US Congress.
From August to mid-October when it had by then become a moot point, Washington continued to steer away from this point. Section 7008, bluntly entitled “Military Coups”, states:
“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available…shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such government if the President determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of assistance a democratically elected government has taken office.”
There are several points here. Firstly, if the coup was classified as a military one, according to the US legislation, any ambiguity about funds being provided to the putschists would, in principle at least, be eliminated. Secondly, once a “democratically elected government has taken office”, which is a scenario that the US is favouring through the November 29 elections, the following question is posed:
Who will have had to publicly go to the US Congress and explain that assistance to the de facto regime should be resumed after the November 29 elections, universally condemned and not recognized? President Barack Obama.
Thirdly, by circumventing the classification of the coup as being a military one, this provides both Washington and the Tegucigalpa military regime the space to manoeuvre they needed in order to declare either openly or indirectly that there is indeed a legitimate constitutional issue for which Zelaya is of course to blame; this provides much needed credibility to the very raison d’être of the de facto regime.
Fourthly, the political clout against the Micheletti regime would have been devastating if the coup was declared to be military according to Section 7008. The putschists, who were very conscious about the controversy surrounding Section 7008, would probably not have lasted as long as it did.
This eclipsing of Micheletti is something that Washington, as we have seen through the evolution of the situation, did not and does not desire. The coup perpetrators got the message loud and clear from Washington since June 29 when Section 7008 was first raised by reporters in the State Department briefings; some cosmetic remarks and actions, for the sake of appearances, against the regime did not really bother the coup perpetuators.
Yes, Washington wanted Micheletti to dialogue, but only in order to incorporate Zelaya into a new Micheletti-led government which would legitimize the elections, a trap into which Zelaya, the Front and the progressive candidate eventually all refused to fall. The US wants to maintain its SOUTHCOM military command in Honduras at its military base in Palmerola, through which Zelaya passed when he was abducted from his home and sent to Costa Rica. read more…
MANIFESTACIONES ARTISTICAS POPULARES DE LA RESISTENCIA EN CONTRA DE LAS ELECCIONES SIN RESTITUCION PRESIDENCIAL
from the Honduran embassy blog
Soto Cano Base: SOUTHCOM Awards $38M Contract to Honduran Firm for “IT-Communications”
2009 November 17
-- Advancing new visions of the U.S. Government and institutions of the region. -- Reducing sources of conflict and tension. -- Promoting partnership in times of need. -- Empowering initiatives to thwart narcotics trafficking and other transnational threats.
This critical infrastructure program supports the Commander of JTF-Bravo — the Commander of all U.S. military operations in Central America in the execution of USSOUTHCOM’s strategy to build Partner Nation Capacity. It is intended to bolster security, stability and prosperity in the Americas.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
USSOUTHCOM C4S Selects Harris Corporation for $38 Million IT Services Program Under ITES-2S Contract
WASHINGTON, Nov 17, 2009 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ —-Harris Corporation (NYSE: HRS), an international communications and information technology company, was awarded the U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) Command, Control, Communications and Computer Systems (C4S) operations and maintenance program for Joint Task Force (JTF) Bravo at Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras. This five-year task order under the Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-2 Services (ITES-2S) contract has a base year plus four one-year options and is valued at $38 million — including all options.
This critical infrastructure program supports the Commander of JTF-Bravo — the Commander of all U.S. military operations in Central America in the execution of USSOUTHCOM’s strategy to build Partner Nation Capacity. It is intended to bolster security, stability and prosperity in the Americas. This responsibility encompasses:
-- Advancing new visions of the U.S. Government and institutions of the region. -- Reducing sources of conflict and tension. -- Promoting partnership in times of need. -- Empowering initiatives to thwart narcotics trafficking and other transnational threats.
“We look forward to continuing our long-term relationship with USSOUTHCOM,” said John Heller, vice president and general manager, Harris IT Services. “We are proud that USSOUTHCOM has selected the Harris IT Services team to advance their C4S mission, as it shows their confidence in our ability to deliver on our commitments.”
Team Harris consists of the company’s IT Services, Harris Communications Honduras (HCH), Charter Trading Company, STG Inc., and Smartronix. Under the contract, Team Harris will continue to administer work such as:
-- JTF-Bravo's C4 systems and networks, supporting network and telecommunications customer services (IT Help Desk). -- C4S installation and upgrade services. -- Information assurance/computer network defense. -- Telecommunications and circuit management. -- Microwave communications systems, including power production at remote microwave sites
Harris IT Services is a leading provider of mission-critical IT and communications services and support to defense, intelligence, homeland security, civil and commercial customers. With more than 3,000 professionals performing to the highest industry standards at locations worldwide, Harris IT Services offers essential past performance, proven technical expertise and innovative solutions in supporting large-scale IT programs that encompass the full technology lifecycle. The organization delivers best-value results to customers through its distributed workforce, present in all 50 states, and extensive experience in performance-based contracting and managed IT services.
About Harris Corporation
Harris is an international communications and information technology company serving government and commercial markets worldwide. Headquartered in Melbourne, Florida, the company has approximately $5 billion of annual revenue and more than 15,000 employees — including nearly 7,000 engineers and scientists. Harris is dedicated to developing best-in-class assured communications(R) products, systems, and services. Additional information about Harris Corporation is available at www.harris.com
Sound interesting? Find great jobs at Harris: www.careers.harris.com
SOURCE Harris Corporation
http://www.harris.com
Laitano recently learned that the identification card she once used to vote was no longer valid; she needed to register with an electoral tribunal and the deadline had passed.
But rather than have citizens submit them (ballots) at their local consulate, the Honduran elections council says it will collect the votes independently.
“The consulate has nothing to do with the electoral process,” Carlos Romero, director of Honduras’ Supreme Tribunal of Elections, said by telephone.
Honduras’ crisis brings South Florida election showdown
Divisions over Honduras’ political future are evident not only in the Central American country but also in South Florida as legal issues arise over elections.
BY TRENTON DANIEL
tdaniel@MiamiHerald.com
Editor’s Note: This story is part of an occasional series appearing in The Herald in the lead-up to Honduras’ Nov. 29 national elections.
Honduras’ chief diplomat in Miami flips to page 117 of his nation’s election manual and insists that his fellow countrymen living here must vote for their new president at the consulate in South Florida.
In Tegucigalpa, more than 900 miles away, government officials say Fernando Agurcia is wrong. His consulate no longer has the authority to organize elections outside the country.
“Right now, we’re on standby,” Agurcia said. “Not knowing what is going to happen has been very stressful.”
Hondurans may go to the polls on Nov. 29 with hopes of resolving the 20-week-old presidential crisis that was triggered by President Manuel Zelaya’s sudden ouster in a military coup.
Yet, for the half-million Honduran citizens living in the United States, 61,000 of them in South Florida, a new crisis is brewing over where they will vote, and how.
That’s because Agurcia was appointed by Zelaya. A framed photo of the toppled populist hung prominently in the consul general’s West Miami-Dade office where he defended his authority to administer the Nov. 29 balloting.
But the interim government of Roberto Micheletti, shunned by the Obama administration and Organization of American States, ordered Zelaya’s diplomats out. The U.S. State Department told him to stay.
The showdown in South Florida may not be a tipping point on the magnitude of the 2000 Bush-Gore elections that hung on dimpled chads and butterfly ballots.
Still, it is rattling nerves in particular here because the more outspoken Hondurans support Micheletti and his coup — and don’t want to vote in a process administered by a Zelaya ally.
In the months since Zelaya’s June 28 ouster, South Florida’s small Honduran community has united around a mutual concern for the political future back home. Activists, some for the first time, organized barbecue fundraisers for presidential candidates, voter registration drives and rallies.
OTHER CONSULATES
Beyond Miami, Hondurans will be invited to vote in Chicago, Houston, New Orleans, New York, and Washington, D.C. — all cities with Honduran consulates.
In 2005, when the last presidential election was held in Honduras, that nation shipped 11,000 ballots to the U.S. Only 990 votes were cast. This year, Tegucigalpa has sent 18,000 ballots based on registration.
But rather than have citizens submit them at their local consulate, the Honduran elections council says it will collect the votes independently.
“The consulate has nothing to do with the electoral process,” Carlos Romero, director of Honduras’ Supreme Tribunal of Elections, said by telephone.
Romero points to congress’ revisions to the electoral law in February 2008 that eliminated the need for a consul general to oversee the voting sites.
Here in the United States, the electoral council will set up a five-member commission — made up of representatives from each of Honduras’ political parties, Romero said. Each city has until Nov. 20 to report a voting site back to Honduras.
In Miami, the committee has chosen the Polish American Club at 1250 NW 22nd Ave. — not the consulate — but has not yet formally reported that site to Tegucigalpa.
“It’s strange to me,” Agurcia said. “They say they are following the law. It is against the law to do the elections outside the consulate general.”
UNCERTAINTY
The uncertainty has left local Hondurans worried about whether they’ll be able to cast their ballots.
“There’s a lot of confusion among Hondurans because we are going through a terrible situation back home,” said Miriam Laitano, 48, owner of a Honduras shipping company on Flagler Street.
Laitano recently learned that the identification card she once used to vote was no longer valid; she needed to register with an electoral tribunal and the deadline had passed.
SEVERED TIES
Some direct their frustration toward the consul, which is not granting passports or travel visas because of severed relations with Tegucigalpa.
“It’s a mess — they don’t help anybody,” said Rosemary Pell, 60, an insurance agent and activist with the anti-Zelaya group Alliance for Honduras.
Still, concerns over Honduras’ immediate future are evident throughout what may be the closest thing to Little Honduras, an east Flagler neighborhood rife with bodegas, cafés, shipping businesses and restaurants. Blue flags with five stars abound.
The owner of Los Paisanos restaurant on Flagler has hosted voter registration drives.
A flier is taped to the front window: Salvemos a Honduras — We Will Save Honduras.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty,” said the owners’ son, Javier Pavón. “I just hope the elections go through.”
Miami Herald staff writer Laura Figueroa contributed to this report.”
State Dept.’s Ian Kelly: Ain’t Nobody Gonna Be Answering Mel’s Letters and I Don’t Have to Explain Why
2009 November 16
Ay, Dios mio! I can only assume that the State Department press corps has to retreat to a dark bar and get ripped after enduring Kelly’s responses to their questions on Honduras.
If you want to see this in living color click for the video.
Ian Kelly, Spokesman
November 16, 2009
Excerpt on Honduras:
QUESTION: On Honduras, Senator Kerry’s – one of his spokespersons recently said that when Thomas Shannon said that the U.S. would recognize the winner of the November 29th elections, even if Zelaya was not to be put back into power beforehand, that that was undermining the deal that had been reached? Can you respond to that?
MR. KELLY: Well, on Honduras, we, of course, are continuing to call on both sides to begin implementing the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord. One of the key parts of that is setting up a government of unity and reconciliation, and we feel that once that is set up and the other elements of the accord are implemented, that it will be easier for the international community to recognize the elections. And I think that’s the point that Tom Shannon was trying to stress in his remarks that are referred to there.
QUESTION: But doesn’t it sort of allow Micheletti to – kind of a backseat way, to still be part of the process when the U.S. has been pretty explicit that it recognizes Zelaya as the president?
MR. KELLY: We have been very explicit that we recognize the – Zelaya as the democratically elected leader of Honduras. We think that there is a good way forward that the two sides agreed to in principle, and that right now, we need to concentrate on implementing it. It establishes a solid foundation not only for a way forward with the elections on November 29, but it establishes a foundation for a reconciliation in Honduras between the two sides.
And so that’s – that is what our energies and efforts are focused on. We continue to remain in daily contact with the two sides, both through our Ambassador in Tegucigalpa, and I know that Craig Kelly is – and also in constant telephone contact with the two sides. And we just remain committed to the implementation of this accord, and we’re sticking to that.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Why do you think that Zelaya doesn’t understand this? He sent a letter to President Obama. It seems to me, or it seems that he – he’s waiting for, from the U.S. – U.S., like a message or a solution of the problem. He doesn’t understand that maybe the problem is in Honduras. How do you feel on that? Is there any sensation of the U.S. Government with this why he continues to – not to solve the problem inside instead of waiting and sending a letter to Obama?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I’m not going to try and interpret why President Zelaya sent this letter. I’ll just say that we all along have been committed to this reconciliation process, to the restoration of the democratically and constitutionally elected leadership. And we have put a lot of effort into restoring democracy to Honduras. And we condemn the June 28 coup. We supported strong UN and OAS resolutions. We implemented tough measures, including suspension of economic and military assistance. And we have been very actively and very directly involved in a negotiated solution. So, I mean, we have been committed from the very start to this process. There hasn’t been any –
QUESTION: So the U.S. –
MR. KELLY: — hasn’t been any change of policy.
QUESTION: The U.S. feels like the OAS secretary, that there is not much to do on the way forward with elections?
MR. KELLY: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
QUESTION: The secretary of the Organization of American States, in his last speech on the extraordinary meeting of the session, he said that there is not much things that we can do until – wait for the elections.
MR. KELLY: Well, I’m not sure –
QUESTION: That was Insulza (inaudible).
MR. KELLY: Yeah. I haven’t seen those comments, but we – I mean, we are – we continue to be involved. We think there still is something to be done. But our efforts are on trying to get the two sides to do it, to try and get the Hondurans themselves to do it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: No, no, no. Did Zelaya ever get a response to the letter he sent to the Secretary?
MR. KELLY: We have not sent a formal response back to President Zelaya.
QUESTION: So you just – so what is – well, what is he supposed to think? I mean, you guys are – you’re ignoring him now.
MR. KELLY: No, we’re not ignoring him. In fact –
QUESTION: Yeah, you are. He sent –
MR. KELLY: No, we’re not ignoring him.
QUESTION: He sent a letter to Secretary Clinton asking what the U.S. position was and you just said – and that was like, two weeks ago.
MR. KELLY: Yeah. That doesn’t mean we’re ignoring him, though.
QUESTION: And he has not gotten a response.
MR. KELLY: I mean, we do talk to him. I know that senior American officials do talk to him. Just because we haven’t sent a formal response yet doesn’t mean we’re ignoring him.
QUESTION: Well, it seems – well, you know, talk is one thing, but something put down on paper is quite another. And it just seems to me that you’re kind of still floundering around for a policy here –
MR. KELLY: Well –
QUESTION: — and you’re not willing to put anything down on paper.
MR. KELLY: I don’t agree.
QUESTION: You don’t?
MR. KELLY: I don’t agree we’re floundering. I mean, we haven’t changed our policy. We have senior officials still involved in trying to get the two sides to – not to agree, but to implement something they’ve already agreed to, all right? I think we’re very – we remain very much involved in the process.
QUESTION: Can you explain why you have not replied to a letter from someone you consider to be the democratic –
MR. KELLY: I don’t think I have to. I don’t think I have to respond, Matt. We haven’t respond –
QUESTION: Well, I guess you don’t, because your silence to him says it all.
MR. KELLY: We haven’t”
The Honduran armed forces are comprised of 12,000 men and 14,000 police in this impoverished Central American nation of 7.5 million people, and the military has called up reservists for deployment during the election. — AFP
Now that the US government has largely finished its “business” in Honduras, it looks like the most dangerous times for Hondurans who oppose the coup and the election are still ahead. Between now and election day, the Michelettis have to figure a way to make this US-elite Honduran coup ”stick” and produce an election that looks legitimate even though it is fraudulent at best. With a majority of Hondurans opposing the coup regime and rejecting elections, the coup must repress the population, to a level likely to surpass the carnage of the previous 140 plus days.
When the US stated that it would recognize the result of the November 29 election, it simultaneously bought off on whatever repression the coup regime deems appropriate to make the election appear “free and fair.” The US will be looking the other way as the repression ramps up which means much of mainstream media will as well. You say, “but they can’t repress all the people for opposing the coup and the election” and you are right. But it can and will ’criminalize” enough of those in the Resistance movement to provide cover for brutal repression of Hondurans across the board. And that campaign has already started.
Over the last week, two things have taken place to introduce the specter of a “criminal” element in the Resistance movement. First, the de facto regime’s Attorney General was supposedly shot at while in his car and coup authorities are saying it was an assassination attempt. The second was an article about a grenade that was launched in Tegucigalpa at a building which houses ballots for the election. Deeper in the article , it said the grenade landed 500 yards from the building. What, this was someone with bad intentions and an insanely poor shot? The coup regime is beginning to weave a scenario that the Resistance, not having succeeded in ousting it, will try to destroy it by targeting the election. By alleging that the grenade was aimed at destroying the ballots, the coup regime is building the case in the right wing press that the Resistance is trying to destroy the right of Hondurans to a “free and fair election.” And, of course, the use of a grenade completes the profile that there are a lot of angry, violent people roaming around on the streets. Enter, the US-funded and -trained Honduran military and I fear the previous 140 days will look like a cakewalk.
With the low voter participation rate expected if the Resistance accomplishes an extensive boycott, the legitimacy of the election should be in immediate doubt. Or, maybe not. This past Spring, in Haiti, the people boycotted elections because the most prominent party in the country, and the one to which President Aristide belongs, was BANNED from the ballot. At the end of voting day, it appeared than no more than 3% of the electorate voted. The next day, the US ambassador congratulated Haiti for a successful election and recommended that the Haitian government jail all the leaders of the boycott because they were trying to disrupt a ”free election.” With the US’ delaration that it will recognize whatever result comes from the Honduran election, they care not how Micheletti gets there. And, the irony is that the millions of Hondurans who have marched daily since June 28 for re-establishment of democratic order may be framed for trying to destroy it.
In my status as President elected by the Honduran people, I reaffirm my decision that from this date on, whatever will happen, I WILL NOT ACCEPT any accord of returning to the presidency, to cloak the coup d’etat, that we know has a direct impact through military repression on the human rights of the inhabitants of our country.
NOV. 15 HONDURAS
President Zelaya Letter to Obama
Sunday, November 15, 2009
President Zelaya to President Obama: Walk the Talk
Office of the President of the Republic
From the Desk of the President
Tegucigalpa, 14 November, 2009
His Excellency
Barack Obama
President of the United States
Washington D.C.
Dear President Obama:
When we met for the first time the 8th of July with the Secretary of State Cinton after the Coup d’Etat there was made clear to me and to the world the position of the Obama administration of condemning the Coup d’Etat, not recognizing its authorities and demanding the return to the state of law with the restitution to the office of President elected by the people. The official position of your government and its representatives that sponsored and signed the resolutions of the UN, OAS. In which the third point demanded my immediate and secure restitution.
Beginning the 28th of June of 2009 my kidnapping by the military and expatriation to Costa Rica. The Congress of the Republic issued an illegal decree where it ordered “To separate the citizen José Manuel Zelaya Rosales from the office of Constitutional President of the Republic” without constitutional abilities to do so, and without due process without any legal ruling being cited.
From the first meeting with Secretary Hillary Clinton mediation by the president of Costa Rica Oscar Arias was proposed to me, despite the fact that I consider that it is counterproductive to engage in dialogue with persons that have a gun in their hands, I accepted considering the auspices of the US and the international community.
In a communiqué dated the 4th of September of the present year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed the following: “The positive conclusion of the process initiated by Arias will be the suitable basis to proceed with a legitimate election”.
It is known by everyone that the de facto regime, without the visit to Honduras of the Subsecretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Thomas Shannon, Daniel Restrepo and Craig Kelly, would not have signed the Accord. Everyone knows why they broke the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord. The same president Oscar Arias for the sake of the truth declared that “Micheletti never had the will to collaborate and that on the contrary he was mocking the international community and only sought to extend the time to never turn over the power that he has”.
Ex-president Ricardo Lagos, prominent member of the international Verification Commission in his declarations confirms this, by stating “Sr. Micheletti broke it”, “Micheletti did things that he should not have done such as to say I will form a government of unity without Zelaya” which made this negotiated accord fail.
The same day that the Verification Commission of the accord was installed in Tegucigalpa, they were caught unaware by declarations of functionaries of the State Department where they modified their position and interpreted the accord unilaterally with the following declarations: “the elections will be recognized by the US with or without restitution”; the de facto regime celebrated this change and used these declarations for their objectives, and immediately ended by default and violation of the Accord. For the before expounded we declare in the following manner:
That the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord remains worthless and without effect for the unilateral default of the de facto government. This was conceived to be implemented in an integrated and simultaneous form; since it cannot be treated as twelve separate accords, it was one single accord with twelve points which had one sole goal, to restore the democratic order and social peace, and with this the coup d’etat would be reverted, which implies the certain return of the President of the Republic elected legitimately by popular vote. And with that, to bring about a climate of national reconciliation and a constitutional electoral process to follow, fair, with guarantees of equal participation and free for all the citizens of Honduras. That the upcoming elections should be developed in a framework of legality and international backing, especially by the OAS and UN and there would be the political conditions and conditions of minimum civil rights to guarantee a result that holds to liberty and transparency.
In this, I want to note that the new position of the functionaries of the Government of the US skirts the initial objective of the San Jose dialogue, relegating an accord with the legitimately recognized Government to a second place, and trying to move this accord toward a new electoral process without concern for the conditions in which it would be carried out. Among others, with public resources that are being authorized by public functionaries not legally recognized and attributed to a Budget document that has not been authorized by the legitimately recognized President.
In these conditions, this process, and therefore its results, will be subject to challenge and non-recognition; which will put in grave risk the future stability of relations between Honduras and the rest of the nations that might recognize its results.
As the Secretary General of the OAS José Miguel Insulza has pointed out, there does not exist a political environment for elections, as has been observed and pointed out by the North American Congress member [Jan Schakowsky] in her visit to Honduras, observing a veritable environment of violation of human rights in Honduras.
This past November 6, we communicated our refusal to continue with a false dialogue, and therefore on the expiration of the due date the text constitutes a dead letter that loses its validity, because an accord is fulfilled in time and form, the violation of this by the de facto regime is for us the condition that determines that the accord stopped existing. Undoubtedly precious time was lost in this unsuccessful attempt.
The presidential election is now scheduled for the last week of November. In this case, as Constitutional President of Honduras, and as citizen who represents and was elected by the democratic vote of the people of Honduras, I see myself obligated to state that under these conditions we cannot back it and we will proceed to challenge it legally in the name of thousands of Hondurans and hundreds of candidates that feel that this contest is unequal and does not present the conditions of free participation.
In Honduras due to the repression that the Honduran people today is subjected to, where there is no respect even for the highest authority of the President of the Republic, where they have not considered that in three years I achieved the best economic indicators and the greatest reduction of poverty in the 28 years of democratic life, where I was removed by force of arms, never was submitted to a trial nor to due process and today have 24 accusations and orders for arrest for drug trafficking, corruption, and terrorism, among others, and where the major part of the Ministers of my cabinet are the object of political persecution and are to be found fleeing the regime in different parts of the Americas.
3500 people detained in 100 days, more than 600 people wounded and beaten in hospitals, more than 100 assassinations and an unknown number of people subjected to tortures committed against citizens that dared to oppose and demonstrate for their ideas, for liberty, and for justice, in peaceful demonstrations, all that converts the elections of November into an anti-democratic exercise by an illegitimate state, due to the uncertainty and military intimidation, for large sectors of the people.
To carry out elections, in which the President elected by the people of Honduras, who is recognized by your Government and the international community, is prisoner, surrounded by military in the diplomatic mission of Brazil, and a de facto president, who imposes the military, surrounded by the powerful in the palace of government, would be a historic shame for Honduras and an infamy for the democratic peoples of the Americas.
This electoral process is illegal because it covers up the military coup d’etat, and the de facto state that Honduras lives with does not furnish guarantees of equality and liberty of citizen participation, for all the Hondurans, it is an antidemocratic electoral maneuver repudiated by large sectors of the people to cloak the material and intellectual authors of the Coup d’Etat.
The elections are a process, not just a day when you go to vote, they are a debate, they are the exposition of ideas, they are equality of opportunities.
In my status as President elected by the Honduran people, I reaffirm my decision that from this date on, whatever will happen, I WILL NOT ACCEPT any accord of returning to the presidency, to cloak the coup d’etat, that we know has a direct impact through military repression on the human rights of the inhabitants of our country.
Mr. President, in the Summit of Countries of the American Continent celebrated in Trinidad and Tobago at the beginning of this year, where I was present, you said
“That we should stop accusing the US for what it did in the past in the continent and that we should look toward the future”. The future that today shows us the alteration of your position in the case of Honduras and thus favors abusive intervention by military groups in the civic life of our State (historical cause of the backwardness and stagnation of our countries in the 20th century). It is nothing more than the sunset of liberty and a deprecation of human dignity, it is a new war against the process of social and democratic reform that are so necessary in Honduras.
President Obama, each time that a legitimate elected Government is overturned in the Americas violence and terrorism win a battle and Democracy suffers a defeat.
We still refuse to believe that this military coup d’etat executed in Honduras, is now the new state terrorism of the 21st century. And that it will be the future for Latin America that you spoke to us about in Trinidad and Tobago.
We are firmly resolved to battle for our democracy without hiding the truth and when a people decide to peacefully fight for its ideas, there is no weapon, no army nor maneuver that is capable of stopping it.
In the expectation of your prompt response, I repeat my highest regards.
JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES
President of Honduras
