Honduras Coup 2009

Honduras Culture and Politics: An ending and a beginning

2010-01-27T21:53:00.000-08:00

With the inauguration of Porfirio Lobo Sosa, boz suggests, the Honduran coup has ended.

Certainly, it is this inauguration that has led to the end of the direct domination of Honduran governance by Roberto Micheletti.

We have already noted that any expectation that this transition will reconcile polarized parties in Honduras, will end the quest by a variety of interested groups for constitutional reform, or erase from historical memory the events of the past months, is unrealistic.

But we agree that it is no longer the same situation, and thus, Honduras Coup 2009 has reached an end. But one that also marks a new beginning for us.

Like boz and Greg Weeks at Two Weeks Notice, we think that Honduras is entering a critical period when it would be well if the world continued to pay attention. And like the author of IKN, we are half-expecting the world to turn its collective back and ignore Honduras once more.

And that means that our mission remains: to address "the confusion encouraged by lack of basic knowledge about Honduras" and to continue to call attention to the writing of Honduran writers and scholars who are best positioned to place the struggle to come into broader context.

So we invite you to join us at our new blog, Honduras Culture and Politics. There we intend to continue to foreground the intersection of culture in all its forms with events that involve differentials of power.

We know that many readers of this blog will want to be kept up to date on what happens to the major players who dominated the last seven months, and we will cover developments there. We intend to keep track of stories we have been following-- the devastation of the economy, the distortion of the legal system, the recognition or lack thereof of human rights violations, and the politicization of cultural policy.

But we also hope that people who originally began paying attention to Honduras this last year solely due to a breakdown in constitutional order may have gained an interest in the country that will make it worth a few moments a day to see what we find interesting and worth presenting to you with context, analysis, and yes, opinion.

And if not: thank you for being part of this project. We will continue to support our friends and colleagues in Honduras in every way possible. We will continue to prize the new colleagues we have come to know throughout the world who are dedicated to progressive agendas and not disheartened by the struggle. This has been a transformative year for us and for many of our close colleagues and friends, and we appreciate those readers who were not willing to settle for the simplifications and misrepresentations of mainstream media.

The Puppet Master Pulls The Strings

2010-01-27T16:29:00.000-08:00

If there was any doubt that the United States is orchestrating the political choreography going on in Honduras right now, it should be put to rest. Arturo Valenzuela, representing the United States at Porfirio Lobo Sosa's inauguration, told the press today that the United States has not made any decision about restoring aid to Honduras yet. "We haven't made any determinations yet," said Valenzuela. "The new president of Honduras has taken the country in the right direction," Valenzuela added after Lobo Sosa talked both about establishing a government of reconciliation, and establishing a truth commission in his first 100 days in office, both of which Valenzuela called "essential elements" to the restoration of democratic order in Honduras. "Things are moving pretty much in the right direction."

Zelaya En Route to Dominican Republic

2010-01-27T13:42:00.000-08:00

Manuel Zelaya Rosales went by car from the Brazilian embassy to Toncontin International Airport about 20 minutes ago and arrived at the airforce base there. He was accompanied by his wife, a daughter, Rasel Tomé and escorted by President Porfirio Lobo Sosa, fresh from his inauguration ceremony, President Colom of Guatemala, and President Fernandez of the Dominican Republic. At the same time, the other people within the Brazilian embassy who were Zelaya supporters left the embassy without incident, La Tribuna reported. At the airport was a large crowd organized by the Frente de Resistencia to see him off. Crowd photos showed that there were many thousand people gathered peacefully there. At the air force base the Zelayas and Tomé boarded a twin engine Embraer jet, which has just taken off for the Dominican Republic.

Update 2:35 pm PST: The spokesperson for President Alvaro Colom of Guatemala is denying that Colom attended Lobo Sosa's inauguration and accompanied Zelaya to Toncontin Airport as various Honduran newspapers have reported today.

Update 4:21 pm PST: Zelaya has arrived in the Dominican Republic. La Tribuna reports that General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez was at the Airport to see Zelaya off. "Political phenomena are one thing, another is the friends you keep," Vasquez Velasquez told the press.

Thanks to our good friends in the Honduran anthropological and historical research community for the photo reproduced here of the long line of marchers headed to the airport to see Mel Zelaya off.

More US spin on Honduras...

2010-01-27T09:50:00.000-08:00

is brought to you by Voice of America, which starts its story from this morning with the following headline and tagline:

Honduran Congress Grants Zelaya, Coup Plotters Amnesty

Supreme Court also clears military of criminal charges; both moves seen as steps toward national reconciliation before President-elect Lobo takes office Wednesday.

Really? seen as "steps toward national reconciliation" by whom?

From the very first version of the US-inspired San Jose Accord, there has been a proposal for amnesty in the agreements that were proposed to end the coup.

Just as consistently, both sides in Honduras have rejected the call for amnesty. Some English-language commentaries suggested this was due to the fierce animosity between the two sides, and the desire by both to keep open the possibility for revenge prosecution.

But as we are seeing now, the issue for Hondurans is actually a good deal more complex than amnesty/no amnesty. Papered over in the VOA story is the continued uncertainty about the status of the additional bill of charges against President Zelaya, produced after the installation of the coup regime, which are not covered by this amnesty. The amnesty, as we noted in the previous post, is for specific identified crimes, those considered "political" or connected to them.

The debate in congress and the party-line split vote reveal major disagreement about the best way toward "national reconciliation" within the Congress itself.

What we are seeing in the spin given these moves by VOA is the US perspective. The US insists that Honduras go through a theatrical performance of enacting the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord even though that brokered compromise absolutely failed and is utterly irrelevant now. One hopes the US State Department doesn't suffer the illusion that Zelaya will not be prosecuted when he eventually returns to Honduras, because if so, they will likely be disappointed.

It is perhaps not too much to treat the VOA article as a proxy for how the US State Department would like to rewrite the story of the coup. From that perspective, two further things leap out.

First, in reporting on the shameless use of the Supreme Court as a mechanism to cleanse the Armed Forces of all responsibility for their actions on June 28, the VOA states that the Court found that the Armed Forces "acted to preserve peace in Honduras". That is certainly part of the court's argument; but by selecting that piece, and leaving out the part about the Armed Forces not acting out of "malice", the VOA gives a tweaked impression of the arguments being offered to justify the Armed Forces violating the Constitution as well as exceeding the Supreme Court warrant produced to justify their actions.

Bad enough that good intentions alone can clear the military of wrong-doing (thus creating a precedent for future interventions in government "to preserve peace". Are you listening, Pepe?) But perhaps it would be worth paying attention to the fact that the Honduran stakeholders feel there is something more involved: the question of whether people were motivated not just by their better angels, but by "malice". This is not a conflict that will be sanitized by formalized actions.

Which is, in essence, what the Congressional debate over "amnesty" showed. In our post from yesterday, we simply reported that the Liberal party abstained. The real story is more complicated, as Tiempo reported in the article we linked to in the previous post:

The Liberal Party abstained from voting because they could not come to agreement, since only 8 had defined a position (five against and three in favor), while among the rest there were diverse positions on the sense that it was necessary to know in depth the reach of the project [of amnesty], to socialize the decision more, to listen first to the Truth Commission and then consult the people in a plebiscite.

(For the public consultation observers out here, that would be consultar el pueblo en un plebiscito...)

In other words: the Liberal Party congress members are wary of how the Honduran public will react. As the party that occupied both sides in the coup, they have been burned the most by the political fallout. And they are worried about who this will affect, what the public will think about it, and how it will harmonize with the expected Truth Commission. Better to get the public to ratify it and relieve the political pressure.

And the second thing that leaps out in the VOA article: even to the bitter end, the English language media still think the real cause of this coup was a non-existent attempt to prolong the current Presidential term in office; as the last sentence of this meretricious piece of writing sums up the whole sordid seven months

Mr. Zelaya's opponents say he was ousted because he was trying to illegally change the constitution to extend his term in office. [emphasis added]

And VOA, like the US State Department, gives those "opponents"-- the architects of the coup-- the last word.

**********
[Nerdy word usage aside here: technically, the verb "socializar" has two meanings, the first to privatize something, as in State seizure of property, and the second

Promover las condiciones sociales que, independientemente de las relaciones con el Estado, favorezcan en los seres humanos el desarrollo integral de su persona

To promote the social conditions that, independently of relations with the State, favor in human beings the integral development of their persons.

The closest to the sense here would be that the Liberal Party congress members feel the need to promote the idea of amnesty among Honduran society, to introduce it as a social value that presumably they are not sure already exists. In other words, they are dubious that amnesty is part of the Honduran habitus.

How badly can the press distort Honduras news?

2010-01-27T01:13:00.000-08:00

Infinitely, it would seem.

Late Tuesday, Reuters reports say, the Honduran Congress voted an amnesty for José Manuel Zelaya Rosales.

Reuters news wire headlined its story "Zelaya to exit Honduras in win for coup leaders". According to Reuters, Zelaya is headed into "exile" although the "political amnesty" voted by Congress would not affect "the criminal charges hanging over him".

Only one problem with this account: it isn't quite accurate.

As reported in a story posted at 12:24 AM (Honduras time) in Tiempo,

The National Congress last night approved amnesty for political crimes and the common crimes connected to them before and after the overthrow of President Manuel Zelaya, but did not include acts of corruption such as the use of State resoures to support the "cuarta urna" [campaign], nor violations of human rights such as homicides, tortures, and other outrages against demonstrators.

Explicitly listed as included in the amnesty were the following crimes:

Delitos de traición a la patria.
Delitos contra la forma de gobierno.
Sedición.
Terrorismo.

Abuso de autoridad.
Violación de los deberes de los funcionarios.
Desobediencia.
Usurpación de funciones.

Of these, traición, delitos contra la forma de gobierno, abuso de autoridad, and usurpación de funciones (treason, offenses against the form of government, abuse of authority, and usurpation of functions) are the specific crimes included in the petition against President Zelaya submitted to the Supreme Court, which should mean that the original arrest warrant against him is now moot.

But these are also the most likely crimes with which the de facto regime and other coup participants could have been charged. So the bill passed by Congress actually is at least as much about protecting the authors of the coup as about achieving some sort of reconciliation. The addition of sedition, terrorism, and disobedience, not part of the warrant against Zelaya raises the question, who exactly is being helped by this part of the new law?

Even more forcefully pushing the idea that everything is now just fine in Honduras, the Washington Post headlines its story "New Honduran leader to take office, ending turmoil".

How easy is that! all that unrest just melting away...

Too bad that coverage of the actual Congressional action exposes that as wishful thinking, even if we only take into account continued controversy within the elected national government (and ignore for the moment the existence of a well-organized Resistance sworn to continue advocating for constitutional reform).

Again as reported in Tiempo, the bill passed by the Congress drew not a single vote from the Liberal party, which abstained en masse, while the UD party members voted against it.

Congress member Marvin Ponce said that "practically, the golpistas are pardoning their victims". This was in reaction to the incorporation in the prologue to the bill of statements exonerating Roberto Micheletti, the members of Congress who illegally elevated him to power, and the Armed Forces from having violated the Constitution or committed a coup.

As UD party congress member Sergio Castellanos said, “congress members cannot self-pardon for the coup d'etat, they cannot pardon those who assassinated more than 100 persons, those that converted a city into a concentration camp."

The National party urged the Congress to act because it is what the international community has demanded as a condition to restart aid. Other parties remained unconvinced of the idea, with many suggesting Congress should wait for the truth commission mandated by the San Jose-Tegucigalpa Accord to "say what it was that really happened and who were the guilty parties".

So no, the inauguration isn't going to make the whole coup go away magically. No matter how much the English-language media try to cast Pepe Lobo as a charismatic leader destined to heal the nation.

The first sentence of the Post's story could have be describing the 2006 inauguration:

A conservative rancher is being sworn in as Honduras' new president...

Remember when it was Zelaya who was the new conservative rancher president? No? well, don't worry: neither does the amnesiac English-language press.

The Post continues:

The left-leaning Zelaya said he would accept that he was no longer president - but only the moment his four-year constitutional term officially ended Wednesday.

Um... OK: President Zelaya at least knows that he is no longer President when his term ends, even if the Post seems surprised by this. It would be nice if I were sure that the Post understands that he is still President now, even if he is kept prisoner by an illegitimate regime. Apparently, they were expecting maybe that Zelaya would insist he was still President? Noting that the November election was illegitimate isn't the same as arguing for the extension of his own term in office...

But even a broken clock is right twice a day. The Reuters story concluded

As a sign that Honduras is trying to erase memories of the coup, a Supreme Court judge cleared military leaders of any wrongdoing on Tuesday after prosecutors accused them of abuse of power for rousting Zelaya from his bed at gunpoint.

To "erase memories of the coup".

That does sound like a pretty good description of what the Court was hoping to accomplish.

Somehow, I don't believe that the Honduran people will actually be forgetting this past seven months anytime soon.

But at least the Supreme Court has relieved them of having to confront what has happened. Much better to suppress those memories and live in denial.

Lobo Will Accompany Zelaya to Airport

2010-01-26T16:50:00.000-08:00

The Spanish website ABC reported late this afternoon that Porfirio Lobo Sosa will accompany Manuel Zelaya Rosales from the Brazilian Embassy to Toncontin International airport in Tegucigalpa after Lobo Sosa's inauguration. Lobo Sosa will be accompanied by President Fernandez of the Dominican Republic, and President Colom of Guatemala. Lobo Sosa said:

"Can you imagine beginning a government with a president in an embassy? Locked in there? Its not right; its not dignified for a president."

Lobo Sosa also assured the press that the wording on the safe-conduct had been vetted by public prosecutor and two justices of the supreme court, and that it had been made known to the new Congress.

Valenzuela to Attend Lobo Sosa Inauguration

2010-01-26T12:10:00.000-08:00

The US Embassy in Honduras has confirmed that Arturo Valenzuela will arrive in Honduras today to attend Porfirio Lobo Sosa's inauguration tomorrow, La Tribuna reported today. Also attending will be José Fernandez, and Craig Kelly. Fernandez is the State Department's Assitant Secretary for Economics, Energy, and Business Affairs. Hugo Llorens, US Ambassador to Honduras, noted that Fernandez's presence "is an important message about the reestablishment of US-Honduras relations with respect to business, financial, development, and investment."

Later this afternoon, the Valenzuela and the US delegation, along with a Canadian delegation, will meet with Manuel Zelaya Rosales in the Brazillian Embassy to finalize Zelaya's plans for exit from the Brazillian Embassy tomorrow.

Charges Dismissed Against Military

2010-01-26T11:45:00.000-08:00

It will come as no surprise to our gentle readers that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jorge Rivera Aviles, dismissed charges brought by the public prosecutor, Luis Rubi, against the military high command for forcibly exiling President Manuel Zelaya Rosales from Honduras on June 28.

"While there is a prima facie case and recognition by the accused of being responsible for the acts that the Attorney General identifies as crimes, in the absence of intent he has not been able to establish full proof of the commission of crimes."

Rivera Aviles argued that they acted in defense of democracy. In the legal brief dismissing the charges, Tiempo reported today, Rivera Aviles sites the grave risk to the public order, the expected loss of many lives, and the violent actions of Zelaya supporters. He also cited the lack of a safe, secure place to hold Zelaya. General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez told Radio America, "we are thoroughly pleased." The public prosecutor's office announced it will appeal.

Amnesty Tomorrow?

2010-01-25T09:51:00.001-08:00

Processo Digital reported this morning that the new Congress will deliver and vote on an political amnesty bill tomorrow. This claim was voiced by the host of Frente a Frente TV program, Renato Alvarez. He reports that a meeting over the weekend that included the new head of Congress, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and Lobo Sosa, but not the public prosecutor, Luis Rubi, resulted in agreement to move forward immediately on this legislation.

The State Department Muddies The Waters

2010-01-23T10:30:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Phillip Crowley said in the daily press briefing:

"In Honduras, we welcome de facto leader Micheletti’s decision to step down and see that as a positive step that will advance the process of national reconciliation in Honduras. And we look forward to working with the government of President-elect Lobo and note that important work remains to be done to reestablish democratic and constitutional order in Honduras, and we continue to – we will work with the new government in Honduras on full implementation of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accords."

First some context. This was part of a prepared statement Crowley read at the start of the press briefing, not an ad-libbed response to a question.

As the gentle reader will already know from our previous post on what Micheletti said in his announcement the other day, he did not step down or otherwise remove himself from power; he merely has removed himself from the public eye.

As if on cue, Micheletti popped up yesterday after the State Department statement hit the Honduran papers to reiterate he was still in control of the de facto government.

So why would the State Department make a statement perpetuating the inaccurate portrayal of Micheletti's actions? After all, major US newspapers quickly corrected their language to ensure readers knew Micheletti had not resigned. Are they just using sloppy language to describe what Micheletti's position is?

I think we can rule out the use of sloppy language. This was a written statement, not an answer to a question made in passing. Professional diplomats need to use language which conveys all the nuances of their position. The speaker, Phillip Crowley, who is Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, is a professional. As the public voice of the State Department, he would use precise language in formal statements to the press.

Likewise I believe we can rule out shoddy translation. In November, the State Department used a less misleading translation of the same words. Robert Wood, deputy department spokesman, in speaking about Micheletti's last "leave of absence" (his words) before the November election, was clear that the State Department understood the nature of Micheletti's statement. At the time the State Department made positive noises about it.

Wood said of that November action by Micheletti:

"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."

Micheletti used the same language to describe the present "leave of absence" as the last one, so presumably the State Department fully comprehends what it entails, especially since they asked him to do it the first time, in November.

So why say that Micheletti "stepped down" when he did not? This advances the spin the State Department is trying to create to make it more acceptable for them to carry out their recognition of Porfirio Lobo Sosa as legitimate president of Honduras and return to the status quo, resuming US AID aid, and encouraging other governments and international lending institutions to resume aid and lending to Honduras.

In essence, the State Department is putting the best face on a bad situation. And Micheletti is not playing along.

The majority of world governments have made it a condition of recognition that Lobo Sosa not receive power from the illegitimate and unrecognized government of Roberto Micheletti.

With the statement that began this post, the State Department is creating confusion about whether that condition has been met. Crowley, by describing Micheletti's move as "stepping down", suggests that a condition the international community has insisted on for recognizing the new government in Honduras has been met, when it has not.

The Honduran Resistance Will Continue

2010-01-22T23:12:00.000-08:00

In the weeks since the November election, the English language press has gone silent about the Honduran resistance. But that does not mean the Honduran resistance has disappeared. During a march in Tegucigalpa at the beginning of this month, Tiempo reported, some speakers called for the Frente to form a political movement or alternate political party. But this is not the main goal of the Resistance movement.

Inside Costa Rica reports that the National Resistance Front has called for marches on January 27 to protest the inauguration of Porfirio Lobo Sosa, whose projected administration is characterized as "the continuation of the dictatorship of the oligarchy." Anyone who was hoping that the inauguration of Lobo Sosa would end Honduran dissent will obviously find themselves disappointed.

The Frente stated that the goal of demonstrations is to "insist on the demand of a national constituent assembly, popular and democratic, to restore Honduras." This demand will not go away.

As in previous demonstrations in Tegucigalpa, the beginning point for the planned march there January 27 will be the Universidad Nacional Pedagogica. Marchers will apparently face increased security according to reports in pro-coup El Heraldo:

Álvarez affirmed that there will be strong security measures, with police and military agents, in ten cities of Honduras.

This presumably includes San Pedro Sula, the second-largest city in Honduras, site of a second march called for by the Resistance. Another report published by Heraldo, after describing security at the stadium where the inauguration will take place, commented that

It is planned to develop operations in the barrios and colonias of the capital, as well as in all the cities of the country. The Armed Forces have placed at the disposal more than 2700 members just for the capital. An equal number is that of the police.
Special operations will be developed beginning in the next hours on all the frontiers of the country.
In respect to the demonstrations, such as that programmed by the zelayists for the 27th of January, the police authorities reminded that, based on the Law of Co-existence, they should be notified with 24 hours of advance notice of the realization of the same and their trajectory.

(The Law referred to, for those who do not remember, was passed by the de facto regime in late October to restrict freedom of assembly that is guaranteed in the Honduran Constitution.)

What kinds of operations are planned for the barrios and colonias of Tegucigalpa-- far from the site of the ceremonial transfer of power, but the heart of the resistance that continued after the de facto regime imposed repeated curfews? what makes it necessary to deploy soldiers and anti-riot police in ten Honduran cities? If the new government were really so universally appreciated, what would be the need for continued repressive militarization?

Needless to say, confrontations with peaceful protestors by military and riot police would mar the attempt to portray the government of Lobo Sosa as the solution to the destruction of civil liberties by the de facto regime.

The decision on continued strategy, starting with the planned marches, was taken by the leaders of the Resistance last weekend. While El Heraldo would like to dismiss the Resistance marches as the work of "zelayistas", the National Resistance Front cannot be reduced to the supporters of any current political party or faction within one.

As reported by Prensa Latina, more than 80 leaders of the resistance, including Juan Barahona, Carlos H. Reyes, Rafael Alegría, Bertha Cáceres, and Carlos Eduardo Reina, conferred in Siguatepeque, a small city located on the main highway between Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula. They reaffirmed the need to resist division along traditional lines of party loyalty, which have dominated Honduran politics.

While much of the English-language press has remained focused on the drama of negotiating a dignified exit for President Zelaya, and on the attempts to distance Lobo Sosa from Micheletti, it is arguable that what will ultimately be most significant for the possibility of effective political transformation in Honduras will be what happens with the Resistance.

On January 27, we will see whether the Resistance mobilizes a sufficiently visible presence to ensure that international media have to take note.

BCIE To Resume Loans To Honduras

2010-01-21T16:41:00.000-08:00

The Central American Bank of Economic Integration (BCIE in Spanish) announced today that it was renewing operations in Honduras, suspended 7 months ago after the coup. Its Board of Directors adopted an accord aimed at normalizing its operations in Honduras. The BCIE will first restart credit and loans to the private sector, then later on, look at resuming credit and loans to the government of Honduras. The BCIE does not recognize the government of Roberto Micheletti Bain.

Micheletti: "This is my last day in the presidency"

2010-01-21T09:06:00.000-08:00

As reported in an article datelined San Pedro Sula in Tiempo:

The Council of Ministers will direct the Government of Honduras starting today

The interim president will withdraw from the Government this afternoon, after presiding over the Council of Ministers that will be installed at 2 PM and will assume governmental control.

"This is my last day in the presidency... I will withdraw to my house for the peace of the nation and because I do not want to be an obstacle to the new government", Micheletti confirmed in an interview with a television channel.

"In the coming days I will lower my public profile and I will stand aside so that the new government will have more space to act", said Micheletti, who assumed power the past 28 of June.

So what does this mean?

Well, not necessarily what you might think. The verb used, that we translate "withdraw", is the Spanish "retirarse": a classic "false friend". The temptation to translate it as "retire" is strong, and this is one of the meanings given in dictionaries. But it also is used as well for retreat, withdraw, backtrack, recede, withdraw, and colloquially, "quit work for the day".

So what is Micheletti doing?

Well, in other Honduran news reports, he is quoted explicitly as saying he is not resigning (the verb renunciar). He explicitly compares his current action to the few days before the November election when, under pressure from the US government, to give a sheen of legitimacy to a soured election, he stepped aside, leaving power to his cabinet, and retreated to his own house.

So the English-language headlines should read "Micheletti suspends his direct role in government". Instead, papers like the Washington Post initially reported the story as one of resignation. [Literally corrected between the time I began this post and now!]

We don't expect the English press, or politicians, to catch Micheletti's nuances-- he has shown one great skill throughout the crisis, that of shading his words so that people think he has said one thing when in fact he has said quite another.

What this move obviously is intended to do is to open some space to allow world governments, like that of the US, to attend the inauguration of Lobo Sosa without the embarrassment of being directly associated with Micheletti himself.

So it bears emphasis: Micheletti is the figurehead of the coup. He is not the total problem. The authors of the coup are still in place, comfortably, and will likely be quite visible throughout the inauguration and initiation of the new government. Lobo Sosa is receiving power from an illegitimate government, and nothing Micheletti is doing changes that.

IACHR: De Facto Government Commited Serious Violations of Human Rights

2010-01-20T14:22:00.000-08:00

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the OAS has issued a report on human rights violations in Honduras. The report, dated 30 December 2009, and made public only recently, entitled "Human Rights and the Coup D'Etat", concludes that the IACHR was able to confirm serious human rights violations since the June 28 coup, including "deaths, arbitrary declarations of states of emergency, suppression of public demonstrations through disproportionate use of force, criminalization of public protest, arbitrary detentions of thousands of persons, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and grossly inadequate conditions of detention, militarization of Honduran territory, a surge in the incidents of racial discrimination, violations of women’s rights, serious and arbitrary restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, and grave violations of political rights."

They conclude that as a consequence of the disproportionate use of force by security forces, that at least 7 deaths have occurred, and that the internal (Honduran) investigations have made no headway identifying and punishing those responsible. They also conclude that the security forces conducted thousands of unlawful detentions without an order from a competent authority, ignored the rights of those detained, and made no written records of these unlawful detentions.

They further concluded that the materiel used and the strategies that the Army, the Police, and the Cobra Special Strike Force deployed revealed a disproportionate use of force which resulted in inhuman treatment and torture of those detained. These forces discriminated against the Garifuna and members of the gay community, and were responsible for sexual violence against women.

The IACHR specifically cites the illegitimate declaration of a state of emergency as an enabling mechanism for the security forces violence. They singled out the authorization of the security forces to search and confiscate broadcast equipment when, in the opinion of the de facto authorities, the media were engaging in behavior prohibited under existing law as "egregious, arbitrary, unnecessary and disproportionate restriction, in violation of international law, of the right of every Honduran to express himself or herself freely and to receive information from a plurality and diversity of sources."

"Based on the American Convention on Human Rights, which the state of Honduras ratified in 1977, the state has an international obligation to prevent violations of human rights and, should they occur, to investigate, try and punish those responsible. Nevertheless, the de facto authorities and the Supreme Court of Honduras consistently deny the existence of those violations. Inactivity and tolerance enable the repetition of human rights violations with impunity."

Finally they conclude that the human rights violations in Honduras are a direct result of the disruption of the constitutional order and that the restoral of the democratic order in Honduras is a requirement for the effective protection and observance of the human rights of all the inhabitants of Honduras.

Still no denunciation of the human rights violations in Honduras by our State Department, who instead announced today that they will participate in the inauguration ceremony for Lobo Sosa on January 27.

Lobo Promises Zelaya Safe Conduct

2010-01-20T13:28:00.000-08:00

President-elect Porfirio Lobo Sosa promised today that once inaugurated, he would sign a safe conduct that allowed Manuel Zelaya, his family, and close followers still inside the Brazilian embassy to journey to the Dominican Republic as "distinguished guests", reports El Universal of Mexico. Lobo Sosa and Dominican President Leonel Fernandez signed an accord today agreeing to the safe conduct for Zelaya.

The Honduran online paper, Processo Digital published the full text of the accord. In it Lobo Sosa agrees to form a unity government of national reconciliation, made up of members of the political parties; he agrees to immediately upon taking office sign a safe conduct for Zelaya and his family so that they might have freedom of movement; he agrees to respect human rights and allow Hondurans to enjoy public liberty; and he agrees to allow Zelaya, his family, and inner circle of followers to leave for the Dominican Republic as guests of that country. In exchange, the Dominican Republic's President, Leonel Fernandez, promises to lobby for the removal of sanctions against Honduras placed by the international community and to work to normalize relations with Honduras.

Update 2:00 pm PST: When asked about it moments ago on Radio Globo, Rasel Tomé said he and President Zelaya knew nothing about the agreement.

Update 5:45 pm PST: Dominican President Leonel Fernandez announced he will attend the inauguration of Porfirio Lobo Sosa on January 27 and return to the Dominican Republic with Manuel Zelaya and his family and inner circle, La Tribuna reported today in its Minute by Minute column. Telesur reported earlier this afternoon that Manuel Zelaya, once familiar with the accord that Lobo Sosa had signed today in the Dominican Republic, said this was a good move, that Lobo Sosa was distancing himself from the de facto government. Zelaya may travel as he wishes after reaching the Dominican Republic.

More US Visa Cancellations

2010-01-19T14:06:00.001-08:00

Tiempo reported today that the United States notified three more golpistas that their US visas had been cancelled. Those notified in a letter dated January 15 included Luis Ortez Williams, the de facto Minister of Youth, Myrna Castro, the de facto Minister of Culture, Art, and Sports, and José Rosario Bonano, the de facto Secretary of Public Works, Transport, and Housing.
La Prensa reported on 5 visa cancellations, adding Gabriela Nuñez, de facto Finance Minister, and Micheletti's Chief of Staff. After noting the US government had been encouraged by the work of the Guaymuras dialog that led to the signing of the Tegucigalpa - San Jose Accord, the letter reportedly notes:

"None the less, the Department of State regrets that the de facto government does not wish to involve itself in the process of reconciliation, and so take concrete measures that Honduras can return to the international community."

Myrna Castro said of the cancellation, "if its because of complying with the constitution, I feel honored that they cancelled my visa because it is unprecedented that after having had the internal elections and being just a few days [of turning over power] we have this type of pressure from the international community." Nonetheless, it sickened her that "they continue these foolish pressures." I guess she won't be attending Fashion week in New York this year.

More Than 50 Lifetime Appointments!!

2010-01-15T08:10:00.000-08:00

Clarification 1/20/2010

Original post:
The National Congress was feeling generous in its last session, at least towards those who led the coup. They gave more than 50 functionaries lifetime government appointments according to the newspaper Tiempo today. The decree, proposed by the unctuous José Alfredo Saavedra, rewarded not only Roberto Micheletti Bain, but also the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jorge Rivera, the Public Prosecutor, Luis Rubi (who is guaranteed 3 percent of the government's budget), and the entire military High Command, among others. According to Tiempo, this security is for more than 45 Ministers, attorneys, directors of autonomous institutes, and the family of Micheletti. The government will, in addition, assume the bill of hiring private guards for all of these people.

Corrupt much?

Clarification:
As pointed out by a keen-eyed critic of this blog, this post over-extended the implications of the original article, which announced "Seguridad vitalicia" (lifetime security), meaning "security guards for life".

So, this is not an extension of the unprecedented appointment for life awarded Roberto Micheletti.

Instead, it is an equally unprecedented and more egregious grant to 50 people-- including Roberto Micheletti; Jorge Rivera, President of the Supreme Court; Luis Rubí; Rubí's assistant attorney, Roy Urtecho; the six members of the Armed Forces High Command; and the 17 ministers and 17 vice-ministers of the cabinet of the de facto regime.

As noted in the original post, the bill authorizes paying for private security guards if those with security for life do not want the police or armed forces to serve in that role.

Among the remarkable things about this unprecedented grant, we would underline the provision of guarantees of lifetime security to members of the government whose appointments are not ending with the installation of the new government (the head of the Supreme Court, for example). And of course, the idea of providing lifetime security guards for every member of the cabinet suggests either a degree of paranoia, or that the de facto regime knows it was not really as universally admired as claimed.

We apologize to readers who were led to imagine that fifty individuals joined Roberto Micheletti in becoming unelected members of the government for life. But we note that in fact this is an unprecedented action that exemplifies what is wrong with the de facto regime.

Military High Command Given Precautionary Measures

2010-01-15T07:42:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court has ruled that while awaiting trial on the abuse of power charges for exiling President Manuel Zelaya, the military high command must physically sign in at the Supreme Court every 2 weeks and must not leave the country. These measures are in place of the arrest that the Public Prosecutor requested. The generals appeared before the court yesterday afternoon but did not speak.

Micheletti has no intention of leaving the stage

2010-01-14T20:43:00.000-08:00

As we noted in the previous post, Roberto Micheletti has now been given an extra-constitutional lifetime appointment as congress member. This brings with it a shiny gold medal, as well as income, without the strain of actually being elected. What else it brings remains to be seen.

Not in question now, though, is whether Micheletti will recede from view in order to allow international powers to legitimate the Porfirio Lobo government. Indeed, Micheletti thinks perhaps he should speak to the congress on January 25.

As it turns out, he has a lot to say.

An article published today by Proceso Digital reporting remarks Micheletti made on Canal 10 quotes him as accusing Oscar Arias of being "disrespectful" of Honduras:

each time that he speaks it is to offend my country, it seems that he has a complex to believe that we are a slavish nation where anyone that wants can order us around; we Hondurans are not his slaves

Micheletti reportedly said.

Micheletti assured the listening public that he would not even ask for a special leave of absence for the period of the inauguration, as that, he says, would violate the constitution:

I am not going to step aside, nor am I going to ask permission to step aside temporarily, that is not possible because that would be to violate the constitution, I will do what I have announced previously, I will watch the passage of power from the Casa de Gobierno and in the moment in which Porfirio Lobo is imposed as president, I will get up and go to my house with my family.

Micheletti said that he intends to participate in the first session of the new congress on January 25: there I will give my report on the situation of the country because it is a constitutional duty.

Micheletti also explained that it was Jose Miguel Insulza's fault that things got chilly with the OAS:

he committed to respect the will of the Hondurans, he promised that this matter (the political crisis) was going to be resolved by the Hondurans and he would support that, but when he returned with the chancellors to the country, he came simply to try to impose the idea that we should return Zelaya to power, and that we could not accept because it was a falsehood that he had told us in our private meeting

Lobo Sosa should be gratified to hear that Micheletti does support his intention to renew international relations because in Micheletti's opinion "we should support it and respect it because the space of Honduras has to be opened to the world".

Not that Micheletti has in mind the same thing you or I might imagine. He is talking about economic ties with China, and other potential sources of employment. Apparently, something has caused the economic situation to deteriorate over the last six months. So Pepe has his work cut out for him.

Micheletti was happy to give a shout out to his friends in need:

He said that on the level of countries he is gratified with the aid given during the crisis by nations like Taiwan, Japan and the same United States, which did not stop aiding the nation in the projects already underway. Despite the restrictions given by their governments, the cooperation in projects under execution never stopped and for this he had to thank them, he noted.

Indeed. No sanctions here, folks, move along, nothing to see...

And of course, he thanked the governments of Colombia and Panama, "who when we resorted to ask their advice never denied us, they were an important support and I thank Panama and its president for the petition made in the OAS so that our country can return to that regional venue".

And finally, Micheletti is willing to kiss and make up with the US:

they have committed many errors, but the US people deserve our affection and respect. The clauses for which they take away visas, I don't meet those requirements, and if they determine that some day they are going to return it to me, congratulations, because I have not committed any crime nor am I delinquent.

Such a gentle nature. So wronged, and yet so forgiving.

Micheletti Appointed Congressman For Life

2010-01-14T05:21:00.000-08:00

Last night the National Congress appointed Roberto Micheletti Bain a Congressman for life. This was the final act of this golpista Congress before closing its legislative session. The decree was presented in a special ceremony in Congress last night by Manuel Ivan Fiallos, a Micheletti supporter who was re-elected in November.

Arias To Boycott Lobo Inauguration

2010-01-13T19:50:00.000-08:00

Oscar Arias, president of Costa Rica, announced today he will not attend the inauguration of Porfirio Lobo Sosa. Arias was among those calling for the international community to recognize the results of the November 29 election. Arias said that Lobo's inability to get Micheletti to resign before January 27 "was a demonstration of weakness that neither Lobo nor the Honduran people deserve.".

Ministers Challenge Military In Supreme Court

2010-01-13T14:11:00.001-08:00

A group of Evangelical ministers have challenged the military to explain to the court why they were denied permission to visit President Manuel Zelaya even though they had completed all the paperwork and obtained all the required permissions. Today the Supreme Court accepted the case brought against Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, Jorge Alberto Rodas Gamero, and Mario Hung Pacheco. Justice Omar Galeano Mejia was assigned the case. In addition to getting an explanation from the three accused gentlemen, the judge will rule on the human rights claims made by the evangelical ministers.

Amnesty Postponed For Next Congress

2010-01-12T17:11:00.000-08:00

El Heraldo reported this evening that the National Congress decided against acting on the proposal for amnesty. Instead it chose to leave it for the next Congress to act, or not. "We felt there needed to be a consensus, and we didn't have time to do that," said PINU Congressman Toribio Aguilera. Ramon Custodio, the human rights commissioner urged that they only take up the question of amnesty after hearing the report of the truth commission.

Porfirio Lobo Sosa, acting on the recommendation of the international community, had urged that this Congress pass an amnesty before he takes office on January 27. While not part of the Tegucigalpa San Jose Accord, an amnesty was one of the original conditions of the San Jose Accord.

Honduras Suspends Payments To BCIE

2010-01-12T15:17:00.001-08:00

Business News Americas reported this afternoon that it had confirmed that the de facto government has suspended payments on $405 million in debt with the Central American Bank of Economic Integration (BCIE in Spanish).

Posting from my iPhone.

Military Before Supreme Court Thursday

2010-01-11T09:05:00.000-08:00

The five generals charged with abuse of authority and illegal extradition by the Public Prosecutor must appear before Justice Jorge Rivera Aviles on Thursday, after which he will decide whether to accept the charges or not. They are scheduled to appear at 2:30 or 3 pm. Because of security concerns, the place they are to meet was not specified by the judge.

"Because of the scope of the audience and because of security concerns, and the shared interests of the parties that will participate and the comfort of those charged, it should be a place that brings together the physical conditions to hold the hearing," said Juan Carlos Sanchez Cantillano, a defense attorney.

In an interview with El Heraldo published today, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez declined to comment on the charges.

Justice Jorge Rivera Aviles gave an interview on the program Grado 33 of Globovision of Venezuela on July 3 in which he said the capture of Zelaya was by a legitimate Supreme Court order, but that the forced exile was a necessity of the time and situation, but was not ordered by the Court. He said of Zelaya "he was disobeying the orders of the court, and that's a crime." How is it less of a crime for the Military to disobey the order of the court? He changed his mind in an interview published in La Tribuna on July 16:

"The expulsion was not ordered in the detention order and because of this we have to look at the necessities at this time, if it was the suitable thing to do, both for the life of the person detained and for national security....we'll have to weigh this later on, once its before the court."

Justice Rivera was also on the commission that nominated the Public Prosecutor, Luis Rubi, in February 2009. Given his interest in the appointment of Rubi, and that he has already pronounced publicly on the facts of the case before him, he should recuse himself, but I won't hold my breath.

Honduras is Broke

2010-01-09T04:25:00.000-08:00

Eighteen days after Porfirio Lobo Sosa takes office, the country of Honduras will run out of cash and be unable to pay its debts without the help of international aid, says Gabriela Nuñez. The only way the country has survived the last six months is by living off its cash income and paying its debts off in a prioritized fashion, or rather, not paying some of them. "The most important thing is to comply with the priorities," she said, "even if there are pending payments that remain....its a work from week to week."

Supreme Court Assigns Judge in Military Case

2010-01-07T14:32:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court, after meeting as a whole today, assigned the Chief Justice, Jorge Alberto Rivera, to hear the case presented by the Public Prosecutor against the 5 generals of the military high command and to decide whether the case has merit and can proceed, according to El Heraldo's Minute by Minute column. On Tuesday, the Public Prosecutor, Luis Rubi, filed a complaint with the court accusing the generals of the military high command of "abuse of authority" in forcibly exiling President Manuel Zelaya on June 28. Today lawyers for the generals requested that the court not issue arrest warrants for them since they would be willing to come before the court whenever it requests their presence. Rivera will have six days to review the filing and make a finding.

De Facto Government Can't Make Payroll for January

2010-01-07T14:03:00.001-08:00

The Finance Minister for the de facto government, Gabriela Nuñez announced today that she does not currently have access to sufficient funds to pay government employees for January. It all boils down to cash flow. She said she has access to about 400 million lempiras, and needs a total of about 1,500 million lempiras. In addition, she noted that the government has run up large debts with suppliers, including 450 million lempiras for medical supplies, and a further 700 million lempiras owed to road construction and paving contractors. She noted that the priority of the de facto government is to pay employees, and creditors will just have to wait. Nuñez expects that when the sales tax payments are received in mid-January, there might be enough for the government to pay its employees. Micheletti previously had assured us that they had sufficient funds to last through March.

Government Silences Opposition Radio Station

2010-01-07T12:33:00.000-08:00

Reporters Without Borders today stated their belief that it was the de facto government of Honduras that silenced the community radio station "Galuma Bimetu" (also known as Radio Coco Dulce) in Triunfo de la Cruz over the weekend. The Garifuna station was broken into, equipment removed, then the building was burned. Reporters Without Borders said "the punishment of the authors of this crime will constitute a test for the government to be inaugurated on January 27." The attack "confirms the consistent danger that the independent media, known for their opposition to the coup against Manuel Zelaya, are under." Reporters Without Borders did not discard the possibility that the station was attacked because of its opposition to the development project known as the "Bahia de Tela", a project which expropriated Garifuna community lands to build a multinational resort in Triunfo. However, they noted that the station has been subjected to previous attacks by the de facto government, including the arrest of the station director, Alfredo Lopez, in August for "being a member of the resistance against the coup."

Lopez Contreras: US Will Resume Aid

2010-01-07T08:58:00.000-08:00

The Foreign Minister of the de facto government, Carlos Lopez Contreras, who yesterday assured us that the conversation between Craig Kelly and Roberto Micheletti did not touch on Micheletti resigning, today assures us that Kelly told Micheletti that US aid to Honduras would resume with the inauguration of Lobo Sosa, unconditionally. This contradicts the public statements of Lobo Sosa, who said that Kelly wanted Micheletti to resign by January 15 to facilitate the formation of a government of reconciliation, a requirement of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord. Lopez Contreras said Micheletti's resignation was not discussed, and that the purpose of the meeting was for Kelly to tell Micheletti that the US would accept the results of the November election and resume aid to Honduras after Lobo Sosa's inauguration. Kelly left Honduras yesterday without making any public statements about his mission, or its results.

Today the US Embassy in Honduras put out a press release which reads in part:

"Mr. Kelly congratulated "Pepe" Lobo for his election and expressed the will of the United States to work with the new government of President Lobo to help confront the challenges once the Accord has been implemented....Mr. Kelly observed that the punctual implementation of the pending elements of the Accord are the best way to restore the position of Honduras with the international community."

Public Prosecutor Charges Military

2010-01-06T13:32:00.000-08:00

La Tribuna reported today that the Public Prosecutor has filed charges against the military high command for forcibly exiling Manuel Zelaya on June 28. The formal charge of "abuse of authority" was filed with the Supreme Court today.

Micheletti Will Not Resign

2010-01-06T13:08:00.000-08:00

Roberto Micheletti announced this morning that he will not resign by January 15 as Craig Kelly came to request. Despite the lure of a promise of millions of dollars in aid and restoration of his US visa, La Prensa reports Micheletti declined. He did concede he will not attend Porfirio Lobo Sosa's investiture, and will stay home and watch it on television.

Traveling so only short reports today.

Carlos Lara: Amnesty Next Week

2010-01-05T19:44:00.000-08:00

Carlos Lara, Secretary of the Honduran Congress, told a local radio station that an amnesty that allows Manuel Zelaya an exit from the Brazilian Embassy would be approved by Congress next week.

"The majority of the groups of Congressmen are in agreement.....There are, in some cases, differences; we don't think that an amnesty is necessary, but for the well being of the country, for peace and tranquility, we place this in front of whether or not we agree [with amnesty] and will approve it."

Lara made his announcement after a reunion of the leaders of the political parties in Congress. Congress itself takes up amnesty on Thursday.

European Union Condemns Killings in Honduras

2010-01-05T11:43:00.000-08:00

The European Union, yesterday, issued a press release condemning the assassination resistance members and de facto government supporters and called on authorities in Honduras to conduct a "deep and transparent" investigation. The press release singled out the killings of Karol Cabrera, daughter of a journalist, and Walter Trochez, an LGBT activist and resistance member.

"The European Union reminds the Honduran authorities that they have an obligation to protect human rights, including the freedom of expression, and to guarantee the security of all the people in Honduras."

The National Police have since identified the alleged killers of Karol Cabrera as supporters of a particular soccer team and suggested her killing was over a soccer rivalry. They have yet to make any public statements about the abduction and beheading of Walter Trochez, or any of the more than 15 other LGBT people found killed in a similar fashion since June 28.

The EU president called on Honduras to do "all that it can to guarantee the safety of human rights workers" and to not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender. The US State Department has so far remained silent on these killings.

Craig Kelly in Tegucigalpa

2010-01-05T11:09:00.000-08:00

Tiempo reports that Craig Kelly arrived in Tegucigalpa at mid-day to meet at 4 pm with US Ambassador Hugo Llorens and Manuel Zelaya. According to the press, he will also meet with Roberto Micheletti at 10 am tomorrow morning. The Honduran online newspaper, Proceso Digital, reports that Kelly will also meet with Porfirio Lobo Sosa today. This is Kelly's fourth visit to Tegucigalpa since the coup.

Update 1:30 pm PDT: Phillip Crowley announced this afternoon that Kelly's visit is because the US is "weighing" its decisions about future relations with Honduras. Kelly's mission is to facilitate the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord compliance. Crowley told the press that Kelly was sent to "communicate clearly to the diverse sectors that there are still things to be done." Crowley indicated that the US needs to make some decisions about the nature of its relations with Honduras and future assistance. No statement on the State Department website yet.

Low Voter Turnout in US

2009-12-28T18:10:00.000-08:00

La Tribuna carried a report on Supreme Electoral Tribunal's reported voting numbers for the United States, and the numbers are low. Voting was first permitted in the US in the 2001 election. Here's what La Tribuna reported yesterday:

Poririo Lobo Sosa		1881
Elvin Santos		820
Others		28
Total		2729

However, the La Tribuna article says the TSE reported 2841 total votes from the United States. That leaves 112 votes unaccounted for, likely spoiled and null. The TSE says there are nearly 19,000 registered voters in the US, according to the article, giving an 84% abstention rate.

So how does this compare with previous presidential elections where voting has been allowed in the US? The TSE website confirms that in the 2005 election, there were 464 votes in the US out of 11, 510 registered voters (95% abstention). In contrast, in 2001, the first year voting was allowed in the US, there were 4,541 votes cast out of an electoral role of 10,826 ( 55% abstention). Remember the 1.2 million voters the TSE wanted to eliminate from the electoral rolls to increase the apparent turnout, the voters who were largely supposed to be in the US? Apparently they never managed to get re-registered to vote in the US for this election.

Spain Gives Lobo An Ultimatum

2009-12-27T10:46:00.000-08:00

EFE reported this morning that Spain has adopted a hard line concerning the formation of Poririo Lobo Sosa's administration. Spokesmen for the Zapatero government said yesterday that if Micheletti is still in power, or if there are other leaders who supported the overthrow of Zelaya in power, the Spanish government will not recognize the government of Porfirio Lobo Sosa.

The spokesperson expressed the Zapatero government's confidence that when Lobo Sosa takes power on January 27, Micheletti will have retired, and will not pass power to Lobo Sosa. The spokesperson added that recognition would come because "they will erase all the traces of the golpistas, because they will form a government of reconciliation, and they will look for a dignified exit for Zelaya," whom Spain continues to recognize as the constitutional president of Honduras. The Spanish ambassador's return to Honduras depends on what happens on January 27.

This creates a significant problem for Lobo Sosa. Among Lobo's supporters are many considered responsible for backing the coup, like Camilo Atala Faraj, owner of the Grupo Ficohsa, through which much golpista government cash has flowed out into private hands, and ex president Ricardo Maduro, and National Party President, and Mayor of Tegucigalapa, Ricardo Alvarez. Camilo Atala, through his membership in CEAL, is said to have coordinated the contracts by Honduran businessmen with lobbyists in the United States to lobby about the "consolidation of the democratic transition" in Honduras.

One of Lobo Sosa's many gatherings before Christmas was with a group of these advisors, including Camilo Atala. Look for Lobo Sosa to let these "advisors" move into the background, and place their lesser known supporters in Lobo's inner circle and cabinet.

Lobo's solution to inaugural illegitimacy...

2009-12-23T11:20:00.000-08:00

is to deny that either Roberto Micheletti or President Zelaya has any role in the process.

As a story in Tiempo, published December 23, puts it:

The President elect, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, affirmed yesterday that the person who should hand over the presidencial sash next January 27, the day on which he will assume power, should be the president of the National Congress.

[El presidente electo, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, afirmó ayer que quien deberá entregarle la banda presidencial el próximo 27 de enero, día en que asumirá el poder, debería ser el presidente del Congreso Nacional.]

Most interesting is his rationale: he says that passing on the power of the presidency is legally the business of the legislature.

This is historically, technically accurate: see the surreal photo in the story in the Nuevo Diario, published January 27, 2006, showing then-congressional head Roberto Micheletti investing President Zelaya with the presidential sash.

But that isn't the whole story, of course. As coverage at the time emphasized, the acts of inauguration mark the passage of power from the previous president to the newly elected one.

Lobo still has this difficulty to solve: while he can duck being given the regalia of power by Micheletti, he still has to be deemed to be receiving power from the previous president.

So who is that? All of the world-- including those few governments that have declared the November elections legitimate-- recognize José Manuel Zelaya Rosales as the legal, constitutional president of Honduras. The Honduran Congress, whose president will place the sash of office on him, twice voted otherwise, asserting that Roberto Micheletti is now the constitutional president. Lobo himself may wish this would go away as a problem-- but it is hard to see how.

And in Honduras, the previous president is expected to give his support to the transfer of power, attending the inauguration. In 2006, the mere rumor that the departing president, Ricardo Maduro, would not attend the inauguration was newsworthy, so much so that the official coverage remarked on his presence:

The exiting Honduran president, Ricardo Maduro, who initially called into question his attendance at the investiture of Zelaya in response to rumors that he would be received with boos, finally confirmed his presence and assured that he would do it "with his head held high".

[El presidente hondureño saliente, Ricardo Maduro, quien en un inicio puso en duda su asistencia a la investidura de Zelaya ante los rumores de que sería recibido con silbidos, confirmó finalmente su presencia y aseguró que lo hará "con la frente muy en alto".]

What we have here is an attempt to argue that the symbolic investiture is the important thing. But pragmatically, practically, the transfer of power is what the symbols are supposed to represent. Power-- which we should remember requires control, authority, and legitimacy-- is what is at issue here, and where the next president's power comes from is going to remain a problem.

As an anthropologist, I know that symbols matter, so having Micheletti out of the picture frame is important. But politically, Lobo remains trapped with no acceptable answer to the question, whose power is he going to receive on January 27?

[Thanks to chela for the heads' up on this story that I might otherwise have overlooked in a comment on a previous post].

PS: The little trip down memory lane to find a photo of the investiture of President Zelaya in 2006 also produced this interesting tidbit:

Thousands of Hondurans filled the National Stadium in Tegucigalpa, with a capacity of some 40,000 persons, to witness the passage of command from the exiting government official, Ricardo Maduro, of the National Party, to Manuel Zelaya, of the Liberal Party, both conservatives.

Miles de hondureños llenan el Estadio Nacional de Tegucigalpa, con aforo para unas 40.000 personas, para presenciar el traspaso de mando del gobernante saliente, Ricardo Maduro, del Partido Nacional, a Manuel Zelaya, del Partido Liberal, ambos conservadores.

A useful reality check in the face of over a year of propaganda, leading up to, facilitating, and then justifying the coup d'etat.

It's official: Lobo elected, turnout under 50%

2009-12-21T16:45:00.001-08:00

AFP reports in Spanish from an hour ago that the official winner of the November Honduran presidential vote is Porfirio Lobo Sosa, credited with 56% of the vote (1.2 million votes).

As the article notes, Lobo's election is largely unrecognized, although of course, US recognition is probably the most important to him. More important, as AFP notes, some countries will condition their recognition on what happens before Lobo's inauguration: if he takes power from the de facto regime, he may still face a lack of recognition:

Up to now, only the US, Costa Rica, Panama and Peru have recognized the elections, although other countries, such as Chile, are analyzing whether to take that step after January 27, depending on how the transfer of power goes.

[hasta ahora sólo Estados Unidos, Costa Rica, Panamá y Perú han reconocido las elecciones, aunque otros países, como Chile, analizan dar ese paso luego del 27 de enero, dependiendo de cómo se dé el traspaso de poder]

Even the countries in Central America that have already said they will recognize the election are making demands that Lobo is not able to satisfy:

Costa Rica and Panama have asked Lobo to seek the resignation of the de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, as a way to achieve international recognition, but the latter has said that he does not plan to leave before the 27th of January.

[Costa Rica y Panamá han pedido a Lobo que busque la renuncia del presidente de facto Roberto Micheletti, como una forma de lograr reconocimiento internacional, pero éste ha dicho que no planea irse antes del 27 de enero.]

And of course, as we have documented in a previous post, and as reported by the AFP, the final turnout-- which does matter internationally as a measure of legitimacy-- was less the 50%.

So, enjoy your new status, President-elect Lobo...

Llorens Visits Zelaya

2009-12-20T11:06:00.000-08:00

US ambassador Hugo Llorens paid a surprise visit to president Manuel Zelaya Rosales in the Brazilian embassy late yesterday. According to Rasel Tomé, a Zelaya spokesperson in the embassy, Llorens came to talk to Zelaya because Llorens is about to take a Christmas holiday, and to get Zelaya's official position on leaving the embassy. Tomé says that Zelaya made it clear that he was president until January 27, and that he would not leave the embassy under conditions that didn't acknowledge that (that is, the conditions proposed by the de facto government). Tomé added that "we continue working to bring about a dialogue in a neutral place and to resolve this crisis with dialogue."

100.07% And Still Counting

2009-12-19T15:32:00.000-08:00

The Tribunal Supremo Electoral's website reporting results started off today reporting that 100.03 percent of the vote had been counted. Upon returning to it later in the day, it now reports results at 100.07 percent! They say they won't declare the results official until at least Tuesday, December 23 but we can make some points now, even if the vote totals change a little later.

The TSE has now counted 2,297,465 votes for president, for a 49.94% turnout. This is almost exactly the percentage vote projected on election day by NDI-Hagamos Democracia. So much for the exaggerated claims of 62% voting. And so much for CNN's December 5 proclamation that their analysis indicated a 56.6% turnout.

For the record, compare this with the 55% voter turnout for the 2005 presidential election of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales reported by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (The same source reported a level of 46% participation in Honduran congressional elections in 2005.)

There are 700,000 more voters on the official voting rolls today than in 2005, but only 107,000 more total votes were cast than in 2005. A variety of analysts have noted that the voter rolls probably include some names that should be purged, and have also pointed to limited opportunities for Hondurans abroad to vote. But even these effects would not justify claiming that the 2009 vote was "massive", the term used by the de facto regime and echoed in pro-election statements by other governments.

Spoiled and blank ballots each individually beat out any of the third party candidates by significant amounts. In the TSE final count, Porfirio Lobo is credited with 57%, Elvin Santos with 38%, and no other named candidate received more than 2%.

Spoiled and blank ballots constituted 155,584 of the total number of ballots this year. Some proportion of these are self-evidently votes of protest against the regime. For example, in the La Tribuna article noting the null/spoiled ballots, you'll see a picture of a spoiled ballot. Written across it are the words "Golpistas hijos de puta", definitely a protest vote. Carlos Romero, director of elections for the TSE lamented the large number of spoiled ballots since the TSE had invested 50 million lempiras ($2.6 million) in training the electoral officials and public education specifically to reduce the number of spoiled ballots.

Taking the spoiled and null ballots into account, there were just over 2.1 million valid votes counted, about what Boz expected if the downward trend in voting participation continued as it had over the last 5 elections.

This is far fewer valid votes than the 2.4 million Boz proposed would be needed for the golpistas to declare the election a solid endorsement of the coup. At the same time, it is far more than the 1.5 million valid votes that Boz argued would indicate the call to boycott elections had a major effect. Instead, the valid vote count falls in the middle ground between 1.7 and 2.3 million valid votes where Boz suggested both sides could claim victory, as indeed they have.

But by claiming "massive" voter turnout, now falsified by the TSE's own vote count; by trying to redefine the proportional turnout by arbitrarily deducting some number of voters they decided should not be counted; and by working so furiously to misrepresent the levels of participation; the de facto regime has shown that it felt it needed something far more definite than it got out of this election.

We would suggest that the relevant measure of whether this election met the expectations of the coup regime is somewhat different. Less than 50% of those listed as eligible voted in this election. Of that number, almost 7% turned in ballots that were blank or deliberately spoiled, meaning that the final presidential selection fell to about 43% of the electorate. The trend of alienation from governance that already existed in Honduras intensified with an election that was in no way free and fair.

The big difference this time: hundreds of thousands of people now count themselves as part of a resistance movement that will influence elections in the future. And that includes some large proportion of those who did not vote, or submitted spoiled or blank ballots, as well as those who stayed at home on election day. Porfirio Lobo has no mandate from the people, to add to his lack of influence in his own party and in Honduras' national government.

"Pragmatic" Human Rights

2009-12-19T12:31:00.000-08:00

"A commitment to human rights starts with universal standards and holding everyone accountable to those standards." Hillary Clinton, Dec. 14, 2009.

In a Wilson Center event in Washington, D.C. on December 8, Craig Kelly reportedly said that "we [the State Department] spoke up very vocally about human rights abuses" [in Honduras], which Adrienne Pine called "a claim contradicted by reality" in her blog post about the event. It is worth delving into the details of actual US statements on human rights since the coup d'etat of June 28, especially now, as we watch the body count of resistance activists rise steadily.

First, we need to ask: what precisely is current US policy?

Speaking at Georgetown University on December 14, 2009, Hillary Clinton outlined the State Department's new Human Rights policy. I will only touch on the highlights and I urge the reader to go back and read all of Clinton's statements on pragmatic Human Rights.

The policy focuses on four key elements, Clinton tells us. The first element is stated in the quote that starts this post. In her speech Clinton outlined how the US is applying the standards to ourselves as well as others. This gives us moral authority, Clinton said, but the application of universal standards is variable. In some cases we will use them to publicly hold another government accountable, as (she said) in the case of the coup in Honduras, while in others we'll use it in "tough negotiations". Here she pointed to US dealings with China and Russia in particular. This element also involves getting foreign governments to put human rights into laws and embed them in government institutions.

"Second," she says, "we must be pragmatic and agile in pursuit of our human rights agenda - not compromising on our principles, but doing what is most likely to make them real." This includes using all the tools in the US arsenal, and when one approach doesn't work, coming up with others. Examples cited include cutting off Millennium Challenge Corp. grants to Madagascar. Here, Secretary Clinton quoted President Barack Obama, who said "We must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time." This she calls "principled pragmatism."

The third element is that we will support change driven by citizens in their own communities, and the fourth element is that we will widen our focus.

So has the State Department been vocal in supporting human rights, and in denouncing human rights violations, in Honduras since the June 28 coup, as would be implied by the claim that the first element of "pragmatic" human rights, publicly holding another government accountable for universal principles, has been followed in US policy toward Honduras?

Not exactly. It appears instead, despite citing Honduras as the key example here, the record does not support the claim. At best, perhaps the US has chosen to use the quiet "tough negotiations" mode of the first element, cited in relation to China and Russia.

Here's what the statements on the State Department's own website show about their stance on human rights in Honduras since June 28.

On July 6, in the daily press briefing, Ian Kelly, in speaking about the OAS's action (which the US supported) to remove Honduras from participation in the OAS, said "[the suspension] does not relieve Honduras of its legal obligations to the organization, particularly full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms." This was the day after Isis Murillo was shot to death by the military during a massive demonstration at Toncontin Airport in Tegucigalpa. Another 20 protest participants were treated for gunshot wounds at local hospitals.

On September 3, Phillip Crowley said "we remain concerned about human rights, intimidation by various- by the police, others, some episodes of violence." This statement was made while debate continued in public and in the State Department about whether to call the events of June 28 a military coup or not.

On September 28, Philip Crowley again shared the State Department's concern.

"Well, first of all, we are concerned about the issue of civil rights and human right in Honduras. It is having a significant impact on the Honduran people. But its also the reason why we have said clearly to the de facto regime that because of the environment on the ground, we will not recognize an electoral result as free and fair under the current circumstances."

This of course, was a statement made just after the de facto regime suspended constitutional guaranties, including the right of habeas corpus, for the 45 days leading up to the elections, and shut down opposition media. This is also one day before Lew Anselem suggested to the OAS, on our behalf, that we would recognize the results of the November 29 elections, regardless of what transpired in Honduras.

The State Department made no statement with respect to human rights in Honduras at all during the month of October.

On November 12, Ian Kelly professed not to know about the reports by the IACHR, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, on human rights abuses in Honduras and said he needed more information. This was in response to questions from the press in a discussion of Craig Kelly's return from a mission to Tegucigalpa in which he met with both Micheletti and Zelaya.

A week later, on November 19, in the daily press briefing, Kelly responded to a question asking if human rights was a concern in Honduras, given that he had just said it was central to US policy in the Hemisphere:

"It is. It has been and remains a concern. There have been a number of human rights violations since the coup, and we have consistently called on the regime to respect the rights of individual citizens. And we’ve been particularly concerned about some of the moves against the media. And the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa is closely monitoring the situation. It has reported back to us about a number of allegations of arbitrary arrests, disproportionate use of force, and, in particular, restrictions on freedom of expression. So yeah, we are concerned about it."

This concern was reechoed in a statement by "a senior State Department Official", who briefed the press on November 20, saying:

"We have expressed concerns about human rights abuses under the de facto regime and will continue to do so. Those principles are very important.

Well, we’ve denounced several times the abuses that occur. There was a decree that the regime put in place which was lifted in part because of strong international protests. But there still are – we still do get reports. We have said repeatedly to the regime that they are to be held accountable for the actions that violate abuses. And I was in Honduras two days ago and I made a public statement calling on the regime to respect human rights, and also calling on all sides to refrain from provocation of violence. This is very important."

Finally, Arturo Valenzuela said, in a closed meeting of the OAS on November 23 that "we do view with concern reports of human rights violations and deliberate efforts to incite violence and confrontation on both sides of the political divide in Honduras that might taint the electoral process."

It is perhaps instructive to consider how the State Department has apparently used the newly articulated policy of four "elements" in Honduras with regards to human rights violations. While the State Department responded to direct questioning by reporters, it never actually issued an independent statement on human rights violations. We thus conclude that the State Department has chosen to employ the "quiet" mode on human rights in Honduras. It has not chosen to employ all of the options open to it under the second element, suspending only some of the aid it gave to Honduras, and doing so very late compared to other countries.

It is also possible to give at least a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of the policy that has been newly articulated. If we judge by the evidence of continued violation of freedom of the press, and continued harassment of activists, the increasing number of assassinations, the quiet approach has failed. It has not stemmed a rising tide of human rights violations in Honduras.

Judged strictly on its own criteria, the State Department's new human rights policy, as outlined by Clinton, has been ineffective in Honduras. Human rights abuses have escalated in December. There has been no corresponding response from the State Department. It has not proved agile in either recognizing the failure of the current "quiet" strategy or agile in adopting a new strategy for holding the de facto regime accountable for the new round of human rights violations. What human rights principles does this policy profess? Clinton offered none.

Perhaps this is what is implied by having a "pragmatic" human rights policy. If so, it is hard to see how it constitutes any kind of advocacy for human rights.

Thanks For The Coup

2009-12-15T12:18:00.000-08:00

In a private ceremony the command of the armed forces of Honduras gave awards to a handful of government officials. These officials "could not be thanked during the Armed Forces Day celebration," said Colonel Ramiro Archaga, spokesperson for the Armed Forces. "Besides, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Minister, and the President wanted to thank them personally," Archaga continued.

"These are people who have contributed to the institution [Armed Forces] and the country, and what better moment than a reunion of the high command to recognize their merits in supporting defense of democracy."

The ceremony was closed to the press, and the public, because this is the meeting of the high command in which they discuss security strategy for Christmas.

So who are these "defenders of democracy" who could not be decorated in the public celebration of armed forces day, but rather, had to wait for a closed meeting of the high command?

Tomas Arita Valle, justice of the Supreme Court
Marcia Facussé, Liberal Party Congress person
Rafael Pineda Ponce, Chief of Staff to Micheletti
Gabriela Nuñez, Finance Minister
Roberto Zuniga, Budget director in Finance Ministry
Arturo Corrales, Negotiator on San Jose Accord team of Micheletti
Enrique Ortez Colindres, Foreign Minister for a few days at the beginning of the coup
Miguel Antonio Andino, administrative head of Defense Ministry

Anyone else think this is totally inappropriate?

Micheletti: "I will not resign"

2009-12-15T11:46:00.000-08:00

It will come to no surprise to readers of this blog that Roberto Micheletti announced today, after meeting with Porfirio Lobo yesterday, that

"Though the world wants it, I will not resign."

thus nailing the coffin shut on the State Department's latest scheme to find a way to make it possible for more world governments to recognize Porfirio Lobo Sosa's government in January 2010.

"Even when the world asks me, even when the countries that have been intransigent watching us with hate, without justification, even so I will not do it. And what does it matter, some days, when we have practically six months of leading on these topics? What does it matter to the international community that I might stay another day, another two days? I don't see what could be the interest of the other countries of the world that I have to leave one day, two days, seven days, eleven days before January 27. What's the sense of that? "

Next.

Brazil and US: "Small Differences"

2009-12-14T10:41:00.000-08:00

Marco Aurelio Garcia, advisor to Brazilian President Lula, said that there were "small" differences between the US and Brazil on Honduras. Garcia spoke after meeting with Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary for Western Hemispheric Affairs. When asked what those differences were, he explained that the differences were over the effects of the November 29 election, but that both countries agreed the elections were not a sufficient condition for the return to normalization of democracy.

Garcia said:

"We believe, there is an accord, that the de facto president Micheletti needs to leave; and it would be fundamental, also, that they concede a safe conduct or other instrument that would permit President Zelaya to move forward."

Valenzuela, in contrast, spoke in generalities about Brazil-US relations when asked about the differences between the US and Brazil on Honduras:

"Really, we agree on some fundamental aspects of our relations and have similar points of view on many of the hemispheric affairs."

Valenzuela met with Garcia instead of Brazil's Foreign Minister, Celso Amorim, in part because of resentment over Clinton's Friday warning to "nations that flirt with Iran". Garcia said "that wasn't a warning for Brazil; if that was a message, it was mistaken."

Some of the press coverage is spinning this as a change of position by Brazil, but I don't see it. What's interesting is that it is Garcia who is reporting to the press on what their points of unity are. Valenzuela is silent in nearly all of the press coverage, and when he is quoted, says next to nothing of substance.

If Garcia's statements are representative of the agreement between Brazil and the US, wouldn't it be a stronger message if Valenzuela at least echoed it? If Valenzuela, or Clinton, were the ones calling for Micheletti to leave power, for the issuance of a safe conduct, would it not be more effectively received in Honduras? But we, as a country, remain mute, and let our "partners" do the heavy lifting. What are we actually saying to Micheletti? Not surprisingly, the State Department remains mute on that subject as well, but I'm willing to bet that its not this.

Lobo "WIlling" To Talk To Zelaya

2009-12-13T17:53:00.000-08:00

Porfirio Lobo Sosa stated today that he was willing to talk to Manuel Zelaya in the Dominican Republic, or in the Brazilian embassy, or wherever, in search of a solution to the political crisis in Honduras.

"There is the total and absolute will to talk, but what is lacking is to see a way that the actual authorities [the de facto government] aid and facilitate, in what is possible....the exit of Manuel Zelaya so that I can go talk with him wherever, I have no problem....but we leave it to the authorities to resolve...the administrative decision on how he will leave is not in my hands."

He later added:

"The leaving of ex-President Zelaya is not in my hands; this depends on the Honduran authorities, and as is logical, I will do all that I can to the extent that I can to influence so that they do what most suits the national interest....I am the president of the Hondurans, that they elected the last Sunday in November, and I have to be careful to not act irresponsibly."

Lobo will do "what he can" but no promises since everything depends on the de facto government. Remember first that Lobo Sosa supports the coup, and therefore acknowledges the legitimacy of the de facto government, however much it stands in his way. Micheletti has little reason to cooperate with Lobo Sosa; they are of different political parties. Lobo's own Nationalist Party introduced the resolution in Congress to reaffirm the Congressional decree where Congress removed Zelaya from office, without the constitutional authority to do so; the coup redux if you will. He can call for those things that he has that will make international recognition possible, but he cannot make them happen, even within his own party.

All of this adds up to little room to maneuver for Lobo Sosa. He's fairly powerless in the current situation, and will not have much more power come January 27. The time in which he could have acted was prior to the November elections, when his leadership towards a resolution of this problem would have meant something, but that would have put his election at risk. Now his only choice is to be a powerless president, as his statements and actions continue to demonstrate. He's stuck with whatever shell of an economy Micheletti leaves him, without a guarantee of international recognition beyond a few countries, a weak position as president-elect and likely an even weaker president.

Update 9:15 AM PDT: Lobo Sosa made it clear this morning that his only roll is to "suggest" what needs to happen, not to make it happen.

"The only thing that remains for me is to suggest or ask that they facilitate the talk that is important for Honduras, to end this thing once and for all, to not begin this new government trapped in this problem."

Dear Porfirio Lobo Sosa, do you really think Micheletti is going to make it happen, to resolve the problem for you? I don't.

Dominican Meeting Cancelled

2009-12-13T10:42:00.000-08:00

Porfirio Lobo Sosa and Manuel Zelaya Rosales will not meet in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic on Monday. Both Zelaya and Fernandez pronounced the effort dead. Fernandez said the de facto government of Roberto Micheletti placed too many obstacles to obtaining the safe conduct for Zelaya. The Dominican government issued a communique which read in part:

"The willingness to begin dialogue this week was reiterated by President Fernandez, as much as by Zelaya and the candidate elect, but the de facto government insists on conditioning Zelaya's leaving the Brazilian Embassy as political asylum."

Yesterday, a spokesperson for Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom, announced that if the de facto government issued a safe conduct for Zelaya to meet with Lobo, then Guatemala, which up to now has rejected the elections in Honduras, would recognize Lobo Sosa as "the legitimate president of Honduras." The spokesperson alluded to the possibility that other countries would also make this concession if the safe conduct was forthcoming.

Still, the de facto government announced yesterday that Zelaya was free to seek "territorial political asylum" but that it could not be in any Central American country, and he would first have to sign a piece of paper acknowledging, among other things, that Congress had removed him from office. Milton Mateo, a spokesperson for the de facto Foreign Minister, Carlos Lopez Contreras, told the AP that:

"It has been decided at the highest level of government: it will be a territorial asylum and cannot be in any country touching on Honduras, that is in Central America."

The reason they want him to seek political asylum is that under the Caracas Convention of 1954, someone seeking territorial asylum cannot involve themselves in confrontations with the government in their home country. This would remove Zelaya as a "threat" to the de facto government and let them get their propaganda out.

Peruvian President Alain Garcia immediately suggested that Lobo meet with Zelaya in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa.

"Lobo should talk with Zelaya to find out what terms Zelaya would accept for a recuperation of his political dignity, or at least to give the impression that he knows how to dialogue. To turn your back on him is less democratic"

Meanwhile, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, returned to Honduras after visiting the United States. He announced, on return, that he would establish the truth commission called for the the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord, during the first quarter of 2010, as the Accord requires.

In a surprise move, Ricardo Maduro, former president of Honduras, called on Congress to declare a general amnesty for political crimes, including those committed by Zelaya and Micheletti.

"Its a tragedy to leave open the wound, in the sense that constitutional violations can be used by any future government to reopen this wound, to re-separate the Hondurans, and to use it for political persecution, be it against President Zelaya or against President Micheletti and theirs, it appears to me that we need to close now this wound."

He called on Congress to do it now.

Zelaya, Lobo Agree To Meet

2009-12-11T16:27:00.001-08:00

EFE reports, along with many other sources, that Porfirio Lobo Sosa and Manuel Zelaya Rosales have agreed to meet Monday to try to put an end to the political crisis in Honduras, announced Dominican President Leonel Fernández. The meeting will take place in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. President Fernández said:

"We hope that with this decision, there will be no difficulty for President Zelaya to leave Honduras and that there won't be any conditions or obstruction on the part of the de facto government so that he can travel to the Dominican Republic.....If the president elect is in agreement to support this dialog, if this is demanded by the international community there should be no impediment."

Roadblock

2009-12-10T09:12:00.000-08:00

The chaos of information surrounding the trip Manuel Zelaya planned to take to Mexico has settled, and the story is now fairly clear. It is true that Mexico offered, and both Manuel Zelaya and the de facto government of Honduras initially accepted, that Zelaya would leave the Brazilian embassy with a safe conduct (solicited by Mexico, not Zelaya) and then reside in Mexico as an honored guest for some period of time.

Why it fell apart is instructive. It fell apart because Zelaya would not sign a declaration authored by the de facto government. Carlos Lopez Contreras, the de facto Foreign Minister, said

"There was an understanding that Zelaya would subscribe to a declaration...that he respected the Guaymuras pact, and respected in a like manner, the decision of the National Congress in the sense that it confirmed the end of his mandate."

They want Manuel Zelaya to recognize their authority and give up his claims to authority, to give them legitimacy. He shouldn't, and he won't. As he said last night,

"I could be here 10 years, I have my guitar."

Indeed, he played his guitar for those listening to Radio Globo last evening.

Why is this a roadblock? Porfirio Lobo was given homework by Oscar Arias and Ricardo Martinelli on Tuesday, which included getting Roberto Micheletti to step aside, since it will be fatal to Lobo's case for international recognition for Micheletti to be the one handing over power. Micheletti has more than once said he won't resign until and unless Zelaya also renounces as president. Stalemate.

President Zelaya Heading for Mexico?

2009-12-09T18:17:00.000-08:00

El Tiempo confirms reports from other media, including Telesur, that President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales is leaving Honduras and will be welcomed in Mexico.

Reuters has a report saying the same, from 22 minutes ago, citing "a politician close to Zelaya", saying

He is going to leave the country today for abroad. He is leaving of his own will.

Telesur and Tiempo identify their source as Enrique Flores Lanza.

Tiempo and La Tribuna report that the Honduras Chancellor has already signed a safe conduct for a car from the Mexican embassy to pick up Zelaya, his wife, and two children, and convey them to Toncontin airport where a plane from Mexico, sent for them, landed at 7 pm. Tegucigalpa time.

Flores Lanza said that Zelaya would establish his family in Mexico, then go to Havana for the ALBA summit.

Update: Radio Globo is broadcasting an interview with President Zelaya in which he states that he has not sought asylum in any country.

Telesur has updated its coverage with a story that is headlined Zelaya confirms that he has not asked political asylum of any country.

It reads:

The legitimate president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, confirmed exclusively to teleSur that he has not asked for political asylum of any country in the world and clarified that in case of an eventual exit from his nation it will have to be within his role as President of the hondurans.

El presidente legítimo de Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, confirmó en exclusiva a teleSUR que no ha pedido asilo político a ningún país del mundo y aclaró que en caso de una eventual salida de su nación tendría que darse dentro de su calidad de Presidente de los hondureños.

The English-language media are reporting this as a story of going into political exile. Zelaya's own statements, and those of Flores Lanza, emphasize that he is leaving Honduras in order to carry on his work as president by attending the ALBA meeting.

President Zelaya, on questioning, has said he is not going to confirm plans as he does not have firm agreements yet giving him permission to travel.

The Mexican government limited its comments to Tiempo to confirming that a Mexican airplane is on the way to Tegucigalpa.

The Washington Post reports that a spokesman for the de facto regime's Foreign Ministry, Milton Mateo

says the safe-conduct pass was signed and would be delivered to the Brazilian Embassy.

Meanwhile, Zelaya is playing guitar live and singing on Radio Globo...

Update: El Heraldo minute-by-minute column says the Mexican plane has diverted to either San Pedro Sula or Comalapa, El Salvador.

Update (7:25 Pacific): A report on Proceso Digital says that at the last minute, the Micheletti government suspended the approval of the safe conduct.

Update (8:17 Pacific): La Prensa reports that the de facto government declined to issue the safe conduct requested by the Mexican embassy after Zelaya announced he was not seeking asylum. Carlos Lopez Contreras said "it lacked the appropriate legal requirements in not specifying the type of asylum they would give him." Previous press reports had quoted a spokesperson for Lopez Contreras as confirming the safe conduct had been issued.

Further details are provided in a story in the Mexican newspaper Diario de Yucatan. It makes clear that the point of disagreement between the parties was a demand by the Micheletti government that Zelaya leave for Mexico as a "political refugee" (asilado).

Daniel Ortega is quoted as saying that

the de facto Honduran government proposed to Zelaya "that he take political refuge, that he leave the embassy of Brazil... and that he go to Brazil or another country as a political refugee, but he (Zelaya) said that he did not accept the status of political refugee, because he continues being the president of Honduras".

Masked Anti-Riot Police Outside Brazilian Embassy

2009-12-09T15:30:00.000-08:00

Radio Globo reports that there are large numbers of masked anti-riot police being staged outside the Brazilian Embassy. They've been unable to get a comment from the police spokesperson, so far.

Martinelli Cancelled Lobo's Dominican Trip

2009-12-09T14:35:00.000-08:00

Porfirio Lobo Sosa had planned on meeting with the president of the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernandez, on Thursday this week, but abruptly announced the cancellation of that trip yesterday. Lobo Sosa told Honduran media today that Ricardo Martinelli, president of Panama, told him the trip was cancelled.

"Martinelli made the decision in light of not having implemented all of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord."

Lobo announced last night that after meeting with Arias and Martinelli, he understood that there was no point in continuing his international trips seeking recognition without having complied with the Accord.

Lobo indicated that he hoped that long before January 27 there would be a government of national unity that was "not of one, or the other", that is neither of Zelaya or Micheletti.

Homework for Lobo Sosa

2009-12-09T11:28:00.000-08:00

Porifirio Lobo Sosa returned from San Jose, Costa Rica, yesterday after meeting with Presidents Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, and Ricardo Martinelli of Panama, and immediately cancelled his planned trip to the Dominican Republic to lobby its president, Leonel Fernandez, for support.

He came back with homework, assigned by Arias, Martinelli, and Clinton, homework which will help make it more palatable for these three politicians to recognize him as president of Honduras in January, though they claim to speak for all international governments. The three of them made it clear to Lobo Sosa that he needed to accomplish all his homework for the international community to recognize him, but in return, they agreed to lobby for him.

First, he must see to the compliance with all of the steps of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord. This includes the establishment of a government of national unity and reconciliation and the establishment of a truth commission.

Second, there needs to be a general amnesty for events of June 28 and later, an amnesty for political offenses, not criminal ones. This is something that was part of the original San Jose Accord, but both Zelaya and Micheletti felt was unnecessary and thus left out of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord.

Third, that Roberto Micheletti needs to step down now; that it will be hard to get international governments to recognize Lobo Sosa if he takes office from Micheletti.

Arias and Martinelli told him that the government of national unity and reconciliation needs to be formed now, and that the truth commission needs to be formed in the first quarter of 2010. They made it clear that international aid will be conditioned on compliance. Lobo Sosa said on his return:

"We need to resolve this situation because, if not, what will happen is that there is approximately $2,000 million dollars which we won't have acess to, at least not in the first months of next year."

Arias, Clinton, Martinelli lobbying for Lobo Sosa

2009-12-09T11:14:00.001-08:00

Oscar Arias confirmed yesterday that he got a phone call from Hillary Clinton concerning the need to get Porfirio Lobo Sosa recognized, and that he, in collaboration with Ricardo Martinelli, would be using technology to gather support for Lobo Sosa.

After a two hour meeting yesterday, Arias and Martinelli told Lobo Sosa they would do whatever is necessary to get the international community to recognize Lobo Sosa as president on January 27, 2010.

Valenzuela To Visit Mercosur Countries

2009-12-09T11:01:00.001-08:00

The State Department announced today that Arturo Valenzuela would visit the 4 Mercosur countries, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay next week. During the visit he will "discuss bilateral and multilateral themes of mutual interest," according to the State Department spokesperson Charles Luoma-Overstreet.

While there's no official announcement yet on the State Department website, its not a stretch to think that this visit will center on trying to persuade these countries to come around to the US point of view of Honduras, as one of its goals. Monday these four countries issued statements indicating they would not recognize the results of the November 29 Honduran elections, nor would they recognize a Lobo Sosa administration this coming January. Valenzuela, on Univision over the weekend, said the US would recognize Lobo Sosa as the legitimate president of Honduras once inaugurated.

Costa Rica, Panama Call for Micheletti Resignation

2009-12-08T18:37:00.000-08:00

The Presidents of Costa Rica and Panama, in meeting with Porfirio Lobo Sosa in San Jose today, told him that if he wants his government to be recognized on January 27, that he must convince the de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, to resign. Lobo must not receive power from that polemic de facto governor.

Oscar Arias and Ricardo Martinelli are presidents of the only two Central American countries that have agreed to recognize the results of the November 29 Honduran elections.

Unilateral Unity Government Call

2009-12-08T17:03:00.000-08:00

Rafael Pineda Ponce, Minister to the de facto President, Roberto Micheletti, has literally repeated the act that blew up the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord the first time. He has reissued letters to the presidents of the political parties, and the Union Civica Democratica, an aggregation of right wing organizations that support his government, and Manuel Zelaya, requesting names. Pineda Ponce said:

"I have sent notes to be given to the presidents of the parties, the UCD, and to ex-president Zelaya, so that in the most pure spirit of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord they propose 10 citizens with the capabilities and sufficient merit to aspire to Secretary of State or high posts in the government, so that, from them, the President of the Republic, can form a cabinet of reconciliation and national unity."

The problem with this should be obvious. Ricardo Lagos, member of the verification commission which supervises the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord compliance by both sides, called it a complete violation of the accord last time. Roberto Micheletti, illegitimate de facto president, is not empowered by the accord to unilaterally pick who forms part of the national unity government, and that's what he proposes to do. The accord is specific, their representatives that are part of the verification commission are supposed to negotiate the conformation of the unity government.

Pineda Ponce continued:

"If we cannot form it this time, this government has the responsibility and commitment to go to the 27 of January and publicly convey the government to the next president"

Zelaya has again declined to participate in this sham compliance with the accord. Rasel Tomé told EFE:

"President Zelaya has reiterated that he will never endorse the coup regime of Micheletti and 'he's not sending no list to no one' "

Mercosur Disavows Honduran Elections

2009-12-08T14:09:00.000-08:00

The 38th Mercosur summit, held in Montevideo, Uruguay, has issued a statement Monday disavowing recognition of the Honduras elections. The presidents of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Venezuela, which is seeking membership, "reaffirmed their strongest condemnation against the coup" of June 28 against Honduras' constitutional President Manuel Zelaya." Bloomberg reports the statement said:

“In light of the failure to restore President Jose Manuel Zelaya to the position for which he was democratically elected by the Honduran people, we want to express our total lack of recognition for the Nov. 29 elections held by the de facto government, which were undertaken in an unconstitutional, illegitimate and illegal atmosphere.”

The elections were held ""in a climate of unconstitutionality and illegality, being a strong blow to the democratic values of Latin America and the Caribbean."

Mexico was observing at the Mercosur summit. The Mexican Foreign Minister, Patricia Espinoza, said "the elections in Honduras are a necessary but not sufficient condition for the normalization of the democratic life in Honduras." She told the summit that Zelaya needed to be returned to power, and called for an end to the harrassment of the Brazilian Embassy.

Mercosur joins the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA in Spanish) in not recognizing the elections.

Insulza Lays Down Ground Rules

2009-12-08T13:42:00.000-08:00

José Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the OAS, said yesterday in a press release, that "the return of Honduras to the OAS will be possible only when the outcome of June 28 is overcome." He noted that the resolutions voted on by the OAS Permanent Council were still valid and in effect. These include the condemnation of the removal of the legitimate president of Honduras, unequivocally qualified as a coup d'état, a demand for the restitution of constitutional order, including the return of president Manuel Zelaya, the total rejection of the de facto government of Roberto Micheletti Bain and its actions, and the suspension of Honduras from OAS membership.

“We all want a prompt return of Honduras, a founding member of the OAS, to the heart of the Organization. But that will only be possible when this country reaches a true restoration of its democratic regime and the outcome of the coup of June 28 has been overcome....An election does not erase, on its own, the forced deposition of the constitutional President, his expulsion from the country and his seclusion, even today, under precarious conditions in the enclosed Embassy of a sister country.”

He then called on Porfirio Lobo Sosa to end the persecution of Manuel Zelaya Rosales and to break clearly and publically with the coup, to fully reestablish respect for human rights, and to work to create national unity in the period between now and his inauguration on January 27.

Insulza called for the immediate establishment of a government of National Unity, with the participation of Zelaya, to prevent Lobo Sosa from receiving his command from the hands of those responsible for the coup d'éat, the normalization of things around the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, and the full liberty of Zelaya to live in his country with "respect for his rights and without further persecution."

"No State or government of the hemisphere or world has recognized the government of Roberto Micheletti....We must reinforce....that in the Americas no one will again recognize a regime arisen from a coup d’état. "

Lobo Sosa said over the weekend on Mexico's Univision, that he thought it would be possible for Zelaya to live in Honduras as an ex-president after January 27 without persecution, and has repeatedly called on Micheletti and Zelaya to establish the unity government, but has taken no actions to repudiate the coup, for which his Nationalist Party was a complicit partner. Instead he has embarked, today, on a series of missions to visit various Latin American governments seeking recognition of his government as legitimate.

Brazil: No recognition. Period.

2009-12-08T09:19:00.001-08:00

Remember the reports that claimed to parse a Brazilian press spokesman as contradicting President Lula da Silva's eloquent "No, no, no, adamantly, no" response to whether they would recognize the November 29 elections?

Well, as the New York Times reports today, that parsing is being firmly rejected:

The president's position is clear...Brazil does not intend to recognize a government elected in a process that was organized by an illegitimate government.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

But watch for others to focus on a different statement, one that supports the pragmatic claim that Brazil (and everyone else) simply will have to recognize the Lobo government:

One thing is dealing with the fact that there were elections and another is recognizing the legitimacy of the elections...And for now, Brazil does not recognize that legitimacy.

Rather than accept the "no, no, no..." or the first sentence I quoted above, expect others to emphasize the phrase "for now".

Whereas what I find interesting about this second quote is that Brazil, apparently, can tell the difference between recognizing that a voting exercise took place, and accepting that it was legitimate.

Keeping Them Honest

2009-12-07T11:25:00.000-08:00

The TSE continues to play fast and loose with the numbers as it speaks in public and represents the election results to the press. On their election results website, they list a total of 2,080,959 votes counted, which they say is 90.52% of the votes. This would project as a total of 2.3 million votes (2,298,894 votes). However, in comments to the press here, Enrique Ortez Sequeira, a TSE magistrate, says that they've counted 2.3 million votes, and that there will be 2.5 million votes total, a record for Honduras.

By the way, this would be a participation rate of 47.8 percent, or exactly what the Hagamos Democracia projections said the turnout was, not the 63% they initially announced, or the revised 49% they released late last week. Looks like a victory for statistics and sampling.

There are approximately 5,000 ballot boxes out of 45,000 that are problematic, where people forgot to sign forms, or put the forms inside the ballot box before sealing it up, which the TSE has not yet opened or counted, but will examine today. Ortez Sequeira says they could finish them up today.

Meanwhile, in the TSE counting center, in the Marriot Hotel in Tegucigalpa, the computers had network problems yesterday and could not talk to each other, so no work was done between 9 am and 2 pm when the network came back up. Its rumored that networking problems are what prevented the TSE from delivering its initial count on election night.

More than 80 mayoral races have already demanded recounts, as have 23 races for Congress.

Micheletti Unilateral Unity Government Redux

2009-12-05T09:26:00.000-08:00

With apparent State Department blessing, Roberto Micheletti Bain has once again begun the process of forming a unilateral "unity" government, El Heraldo reports. He has once again requested from his ministers, and his support groups, since that's the only part of civil society he recognizes, lists of names of people to form a unilateral "unity" government, just as he did after the signing of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord.

According to Oscar Matute, Micheletti's Minister of Government, his cabinet already is a "unity" government since it contains people from other political parties. In the previous "unity" government formed by Micheletti, its core consisted of many of his current cabinet members.

Don't Go Changing....

2009-12-04T12:45:00.000-08:00

To be blunt, the TSE is messing with us in order to tell the story about the election that the de facto government of Roberto Micheletti Bain wants the world to accept. The message, turnout was massive. The reality is quite a bit different, and the way they're playing the game is by changing the rules. Here's how it goes.

You will remember the night of the election there was confusion about the participation level of the populace of Honduras in voting. Saul Escobar, president of the TSE, came out and told us that 63 percent of the potential voters voted, whereas at the same press conference, they read the report of the independent NGO Hagamos Democracia, which found a participation level of 47 percent in its data. Where did that discrepancy come from? Many of us have been looking for the reason.

While previous press reports have described Hagamos Democracia as having a contract with the TSE, and described its methodology as being based on exit polling, neither turns out to be true.
According to Rolando Bú, coordinator of Hagamos Democracia, the only thing the TSE did was accredit them as election observers. They were not paid by the TSE to report; they are, in fact, and NGO, funded by various governments, including the United States.

Their methodology was to select a sample of 1173 mesas electorales from around the country based on criteria like their history of participation in previous elections and other criteria. In each of these mesas electorales, they established an observer who was present the whole time, from the time the polling place opened until it closed, and did not visit other mesas electorales as many election observers do. After the polling place closed, their election observer sent them the statistics from that mesa, including the tallied vote counts, and participation from the official "actas" that the TSE has reported to it to tally. Their observers also send in their own statistics gathered from their observations during the day.

In 2005 the TSE website said 2,190,398 people voted, from an electoral roll of 3,976,550 voters. According to Hagamos Democracia, 2,162,000 voted in 2009 from an electoral roll of 4.6 million. That's approximately 28,000 fewer people voting than voted in 2005, while the electoral roll increased by some 600,000 persons. The size of the electoral roll was supplied to Hagamos Democracia by the TSE prior to the election, and was the same number supplied to the press.

Bú told Tiempo that the TSE measured participation against a different electoral roll that was adjusted for emigration, deaths, etc, that the TSE did not share with them. Bú said that Hagamos Democracia was not adjusting the electoral roll for deaths and emigration because it did not have reliable enough information to do so.

To measure participation you need to know two things; how many people voted, and how many possible voters there were. In prior elections, including the 2005 election, participation was measured as a percentage of the whole electoral roll. For 2009, the TSE no longer wants to use the size of the electoral roll as registered, but rather some adjusted number that they're not publically releasing. This is transparent? For the TSE to measure against another value is disingenuous at best, and an attempt to deliberately mislead, at worst.

As I wrote this a correspondent wrote to tell me the TSE has recanted and now claims turnout was 49%. This was confirmed in an AFP story.

Next Farcical Step

2009-12-04T04:00:00.000-08:00

The next farcical step in the ballet choreographed by the State Department is being danced in Honduras. Porfirio Lobo, the president-elect in the election of last Sunday, called on Roberto Micheletti Bain to form a government of national unity and reconciliation, as the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord called for a month ago. Lobo said this government should be formed independently. Lobo said that this was vital for his recognition.

Lobo said he understood that there were different opinions circulating about the accord, like that of Ricardo Lagos, but that that was normal, and that all parties should press forward to comply with the agreement.

"With the decision of Congress, we are complying with the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord...and pending is the formation of a government of a government of reconciliation and the truth commission."

Tiempo perceives Lobo as asking Micheletti to conform the government, but there is ambiguity in the reporting over just who Lobo thinks should form the government, and be part of it. What is clear is that Lobo does not believe Zelaya himself should be part of the government, since he said after the election "Zelaya is history".

"Disappointing" vote by Congress "broke" Accord

2009-12-03T19:55:00.000-08:00

The Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord committed both the faction of Roberto Micheletti and the legally elected president of Honduras, José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, to a series of steps that, as has been noted at length here and elsewhere, was fatally flawed by the lack of a sufficiently clear timeline and an undefined mechanism for the formation of the expected "unity" government.

The US government, after it committed itself to recognizing the outcome of the election whether or not Zelaya was restored by the proposed vote in the Honduran Congress, has been held awkwardly to the transparent fiction that the Accord never was intended to imply a vote on Zelaya's restitution had to take place before the elections.

So immediately after the election, the Honduran Congress chose, for whatever reason, not to vote on a straight motion whether or not to restore President Zelaya, but rather, decided to turn the clock back to June 28 and re-enact the passage of the decree through which they claimed to install Roberto Micheletti as replacement president.

Where does that leave things?

Speaking for the US, Arturo Valenzuela said

We're disappointed by this decision since the United States had hoped that Congress would have approved [Zelaya's] return.

He also, remarkably, reiterated that the US continues

to accept President Zelaya as the democratically elected and legitimate leader of Honduras

and that

the status quo remains unacceptable.

In response to questioning after Valenzuela's statement, unnamed Senior Administration Officials expanded on this theme, noting that the November 29 voting

we have always felt, was an important step to the solution of the problems of Honduras, but not a sufficient one, because the restoration of the democratic and constitutional order had to go by additional measures... [emphasis added]

These "additional measures" explicitly included

this vote that the Congress was supposed to take on the restoration of Zelaya...[emphasis added]

Translation: the US expected a different vote than the one they got. What kind of vote? well, I am glad you asked:

That's why we were disappointed. And the fact that the Congress, in fact, did not vote President Zelaya back into office...

And about the unacceptable status quo, the same unnamed officials said

the absence of democratic and constitutional order is the unacceptable status quo

and

we continue to accept President Zelaya as the democratically elected president of Honduras.

For his part, Ricardo Lagos, the former Chilean president who had the bad experience of being part of the all-too-briefly functional "verification" commission, went further. As reported in El Universal of Venezuela, speaking on CNN En Español Lagos said

the refusal of the Honduran Congress to restore the overthrown president Manuel Zelaya "breaks" the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord and will make international recognition "more difficult"

Lagos puts the blame for the breaking of the accord squarely on the de facto regime and the Honduran Congress:

The decision "finishes breaking the accord between the (interim) government and Zelaya..it began to be broken [when] one of the parties thought that he could constitute [the unity government]" in a unilateral form...in reference to the regime of Roberto Micheletti.

Most important, in this interview, Lagos said that

in his reading, the vote on the part of Congress about the situation of Zelaya foressen in the Tegucigalpa Accord carried "implicitly" an "elegant form to restore" the overthrown official.

Or to put it another way: Lagos, like most readers, thought the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord called for a vote on restoring Zelaya as a way to give Congress a face-saving means to redress their original actions.

So, the US and Lagos are in harmony and both consider what the Congress did an unfortunate, even disappointing, waste of the opportunity provided in the Accord. Right?

Well, not so fast. The US manages to add yet another twist to its already contorted position. Valenzuela added to the remarks quoted above the qualification that

the decision taken by Congress, which it carried out in an open and transparent manner, was in accordance with its mandate in Article 5 of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord.

Let us pause to think about the implications here.

The US does not recognize the coup of June 28 as legitimate, and continues to consider Manuel Zelaya the only legitimate president of Honduras (while looking wistfully ahead to the end of January and a new inauguration as their new solution).

Yet the framework now transparently identifiable as forged by the US-- despite the thin veil of Costa Rican mediation cast over it by the use of Oscar Arias as a conduit-- has had one real result: it gave the Honduran legislature a chance to reaffirm the very same unconstitutional actions whose outcoes the US says it still does not recognize.

Quite a powerful tool, that Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord: it apparently cleanses constitutional rupture and makes it something the international community has to accept-- because it was transparent.

But then, so were the events of June 28. They were transparently a coup d'etat.

Yet, the US argues that the exact same decree that was illegitimate on June 28 is legitimate in December because it was enacted in response to the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord.

What a powerful thing that Accord turned out to be: it supercedes the Constitution of Honduras and whitewashes a universally condemned coup.

Poet Rebeca Becerra Arrested

2009-12-03T14:49:00.000-08:00

Poet Rebeca Becerra was arrested today along with her 8 year old daughter as she attempted to collect her partial share of an annual bonus in the Ministry of Education. She was accused of having taken public documents from the Ministry of Culture offices by Myrna Castro, the de facto Minister of Culture.

Mayoral Update San Pedro Sula

2009-12-02T18:30:00.000-08:00

With 76.55 percent of the vote counted, here's how the mayoral race for San Pedro Sula stood late this afternoon. The numbers come from La Prensa's Minute by Minute column at 4:39 pm. With 911 of 1190 actas counted:

Candidate	number of votes	percent
Juan Carlos Zuniga	57,708	49.03
Tuky Bendaña	55,928	47.51
other/null	4,073	3.46
Totales	117,699	100.00

If this is 76.55% of the votes, it implies we should see about 153,754 votes in San Pedro Sula this year, or a turnout of about 30% of the (low ball) estimated 507,000 voters in San Pedro Sula.

Couping The Coup

2009-12-02T14:27:00.000-08:00

Congress committed another unconstitutional act when it voted this evening on a motion to again ratify its Decreto 141-2009, which removed Zelaya from office (not a power granted them by the constitution) and installed Mr. Micheletti as de facto president. The motion was introduced by the Nationalist party, which held a meeting this morning and agreed to vote as a block of 55 votes in favor of this motion. They only needed 9 Congressmen from another party to join them to block the restitution of Zelaya, but in fact the measure had substantial support from members of the Liberal Party as well. At 7:11 pm Tegucigalpa time, a simple majority of the Congressmen had voted for the motion, with the vote continuing.

The Honduran Congress today thumbed its nose at the rule of law, at the US State Department, and the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord.

Update: 8:48 PM Tegucigalpa time: 92 votes for the motion, 11 against so far.

Update 9:30 PM Tegucigalpa time: 110 votes for the motion, 14 against.

Final vote: 111 votes for the motion, 14 against, with 3 Congressmen absent.

Congress deliberates on repeating the coup

2009-12-02T13:30:00.000-08:00

The Partido Nacionalista had determined to meet today and reach a uniform position on the restoral of constitutional order.

While La Prensa reports that debate is ongoing, and that the head of Congress, Jose Saavedra, says it could continue until Friday, a first hint of the likely vote came when the Nacionalista delegation introduced a motion to deny restoration of President Zelaya. Reportedly, according to La Tribuna's Minuto a Minuto, 33 members of the Liberal party joined the Nacionalistas to vote to accept the motion for debate.

As previously promised, the reports received by Congress are now unsealed and all are opposed to the return to the constitutional order that existed before June 28.

Let us pause before the debate concludes and recall two things:

there is no legal basis under Honduran law for what was done June 28. The legal code requires the presumption of innocence; the rights of due process have not been honored; no legal verdict on charges against President Zelaya could validly be reached without due process; and no verdict resulting in his conviction of a crime has been reached. So the Congress is debating whether to commit a crime, or rather, recommit the crimes they committed on June 28. They do not and did not have authority to remove the President from office and replace him.

Second: the sole reason they are debating committing these crimes again is because a US-brokered, US-proxy-mediated agreement invited Congress to substitute an unconstitutional vote for an unconstitutional vote.

On recognition and Brazil

2009-12-01T06:56:00.000-08:00

As the vote count continues, with the official report of the final count now delayed until December 29, the question of recognition of the election faces those countries that said they would not do so, as well as those that said they would.

The US continues to express its position in the murkiest of language.

Brazil, in contrast, is crystal clear, yet today we see others suggesting a softening of the Brazilian position.

The stated Brazilian position remains that voting this Sunday was conducted under conditions that make it impossible to recognize the results, and that the restoral of the constitutional government illegally overthrown June 28 is non-negotiable.

So where are commentators seing room to negotiate the non-negotiable? in the suggestion that perhaps Zelaya can be forced into a nominal restoral just long enough to participate in the inauguration of Pepe Lobo.

Coverage of what Lula actually said at the Iberoamerican Summit doesn't support that interpretation: in fact, he restated that Brazil will not recognize the elections in Honduras or talk to the winner.

For this, it is best to look at original Portugese reporting. So here, I translate Lula's direct quotes from the Portugese.

Rejecting the attempt by Oscar Arias to put pressure on him by comparing recognizing the Honduran elections to recognizing those of Iran, Lula says:

Iran's president participated in the elections and won 62% of the votes, the Constitution was not violated. It is different from a person who committed a coup d'etat repudiated by all countries, by the OAS, which placed conditions set by the very same President of Costa Rica, which was the return to power of President Zelaya.

The coup worked cynically, convened elections for which it did not have a right. [They could have done things with greater normalcy, returned the president, called elections. The return to normality in Honduras all we want. The rest is this:]* You can not make concessions to a coup.

It is a matter of common sense, a matter of principle, we can not condone the politics of vandalism in Latin America.

*[material in brackets was not included in the source cited above, but was contained in the fuller version of these remarks published by Brazil's O Globo]

Commenting specifically on the situation of President Zelaya, Lula said he hoped Honduras would take the decision that would allow Zelaya to return to normalcy, adding

The best thing would be Zelaya back home, but you must have constitutional guarantees, of the government, of the OAS, and this has to happen rapidly.
[emphasis added]

Other analysts may try to spin Lula's remarks by taking note of the following comment while ignoring the rest of the statements, reported above:

This citizen [Pepe Lobo] has the right to take the steps he deems necessary. If something new happens, let's see, we'll wait. The problem now is much more of Honduras than of Brazil...

What does this mean?

First, Lula is clearly trying to keep separate Pepe Lobo and the authors of the coup d'etat. The election is illegitimate because it was convened by the coup government, which had no legal right to oversee this (and which cannot actually guarantee a free and fair election). But he is not condemning Lobo for participating in the election.

Second, by pointedly calling Lobo a "citizen" (which is the form of address the de facto regime uses in its references to President Zelaya, as a continual refusal to recognize his continued constitutional status) Lula is explicitly refusing to recognize him as president-elect. Lobo can do what he thinks necessary, he says, but we will wait. We'll see.

The problem is Honduras' problem because, as Lula's earlier statements make clear, unless there is rapid action to restore President Zelaya, he is not changing his position. To quote his response to questions at the Iberamerican summit:

Não, não, não, não. Peremptoriamente, não.

[No, no, no, no. Absolutely, no.]

In longer accounts of his comments in Brazilian media, Lula is very clear:

I can not decide now for what may happen next month or in two, three or four months

he said, asked specifically about "new things" that might affect his position,

But for now, the Brazilian position is not to accept the electoral process

Pretty clear, right?

Yet otherwise reliable commentators have suggested a modification, based on a statement attributed to Lula by Reuters UK:

If something new happens, we can discuss it. For now, the (Brazilian) position is not to accept the electoral process in Honduras. A new thing (we could discuss) is for Zelaya to take over for the inauguration of the new president.

I could not find the original of this in Portugese, even in the longest interviews on the topic I have found reproduced, in which Lula emphatically reiterates that recognizing this election opens the door to future coups in Latin America. It should come right after the statements I reproduce and translate above.

I don't doubt Lula said this, or something close to it, perhaps in response to questioning. But it would seem like such a major change of position would have been featured in some of the original Portugese-language reporting.

And it is interesting that Reuters UK (now reproduced by the New York Times) left out all the rest of Lula's remarks that I translated above, in which he emphatically and repeatedly rejected recognition and called for the restoral of President Zelaya. And there is more in the same vein that I don't have time to collate and translate-- and you, dear reader, probably wouldn't have the patience to review.

What precisely Lula might have meant by Zelaya taking over for the inauguration of the new president is the question, one that for me requires the original language quote. A one-word error in translation could have changed a statement from "take over until the inauguration of the new president" ["for" is de; "until" is até, so this is an easy transcription error from spoken Portugege]. Calling for Zelaya to take over until the inauguration-- e.g. for the rest of his original term-- would be consistent with all the rest of the quotes from, supposedly, the very same interview.

Indeed, given that Lula is in this passage clarifying what might be a "new thing" that would change Brazil's firm position, I suspent whatever statement Reuters is translating followed closely from where he said "If something new happens, let's see, we'll wait". The implication there is clear: something "new" would be movement in Honduras to restore the President to office.

Watch for the storyline now to become some sort of brief restoration. But don't believe everything you read.

Please Brief Valenzuela

2009-11-30T16:12:00.000-08:00

Will someone please bring Arturo Valenzuela, the State Department's new Assistant Secretary for West Hemisphere Affairs up to speed on the Honduran election history? He seems to not know the history surrounding this election. Today in his press conference, he said:

In fact, the primaries were held in November of last year in each of the major parties. The vice president, Santos, resigned. He was Zelaya’s vice president. He resigned as vice president to run for office. He competed in primaries in November of last year.

In fact Elvin Santos did NOT compete in the primaries last November. He was ruled ineligible by the Supreme Election Tribunal. I'll refer you to a previous post from August this year for all the details since it involves constitutional amendments.

The Supreme Electoral Tribunal ruled in August 2008, that Santos could not be inscribed in the primary election as a presidential candidate because he was still the Vice President, and he then had to install a puppet candidate, Mauricio Villeda Bermudez, as a placeholder. He resigned as Vice President on November 18, 2008, just before the primary election, but it was not until December 17th, after his stand-in had won the primary election, that Santos's resignation was accepted by Congress, and the TSE ruled that as long as he resigned at least 6 months before the election he could run. Villeda Bermudez was convinced to withdraw his candidacy in favor of Santos. That's how Santos became a presidential candidate. He did not compete in the primary election.

Valenzuela also seems not to know that two of the magistrates appointed to the TSE this time were at the time of their appointment holding political office in violation of the constitution, which of course caused a stir in Honduras but was no impediment to their appointment.

There seems to be much deep background about the Honduran elections that Mr. Valenzuela doesn't appear to know. Will someone please brief him?

Numbers Dropping

2009-11-30T13:48:00.000-08:00

Something interesting is happening as the official numbers trickle out of the TSE. You will remember that according to a Tiempo article from this morning, with 8,862 of 15,260 urns counted:

Candidate	number of votes
Porfirio Lobo	897,335
Elvin Santos	613,384
Bernardo Martinez	35.593
Felícito Avila	31,174
César Ham	29,006
Totales	1,605,442

This count, with 58.07% of the urns counted, yielded 1,605,442 valid votes, giving a straight-line projection of 2,764,666 valid votes in the whole election, for an expected number of 60% of the 4.6 million votes possible. That would agree with the otherwise unbelievable claim by the TSE that turnout would be over 60%, much higher than the 2005 election.

Now, we do not expect a perfect straight-line projection, since different districts can contribute different numbers of votes. But what has happened since is interesting and may come close to explaining why the TSE expected 60%+ turnout while the official exit polling group expected under 50%.

La Tribuna just reported a new set of numbers from the TSE in their Minute By Minute archive for today. This count is for 10,120 urns of the 15,260:

Candidate	number of votes
Porfirio Lobo	937,006
Elvin Santos	639,481
Bernardo Martinez	37,029
Felícito Avila	32,113
César Ham	30,334
Totales	1,675,511

This count, of 66.31% of the urns, yielded a total of 1,675,511 valid votes which projected forward would suggest 2,526,784 valid votes expected when all the urns are counted, or only about 54% of the 4.6 million voter electorate.

What seems to be happening is that the original projection of turnout, based on the returns from just a few central municipios, especially the area around Tegucigalpa, overestimated the turnout in the rest of the country.

As these additional ballot boxes are counted, the percentage of valid votes is decreasing, approaching the levels reported by the exit polling company, whose sample was from across all of Honduras. At the same time, the number of null and blank ballots counted, as a percentage is increasing (6.94% versus 6.3%).

Or: polling wins. But will it trump propaganda?

TSE and exit polls "Only differ in abstentionism"

2009-11-30T08:48:00.001-08:00

To recap: last night, at the official TSE press conference, the exit polling service announced turnout projections of under 50%; while the TSE itself said they thought the turnout would be over 60%.

One does not even have to delve into the on-the-ground reports by international observers and resistance activists, who saw light turnout where they were watching polls, to worry about why the two TSE numbers are so far apart.

In an article this morning in Tiempo on the declaration of Pepe Lobo as winner, the second paragraph says that

En la presentación de los resultados se produjo una polémica porque mientras el Tribunal Supremo Electoral proclamó que el abstencionismo fue del 38. 7 por ciento, la Fundación Hagamos Democracia, que tiene un centro de cómputo similar al del organismo electoral, dijo que fue de 52. 4 por ciento.

[In the presentation of the results a controversy was produced because while the TSE proclaimed that abstentionism was 38.7%, the FHD, which has a center of computation similar to the electoral organism, said that it was 52.4%]

This is reporting on the same press conference we listened to live last night. The Fundación Hagamos Democracia is the exit polling entity in Honduras under contract to the TSE.

Later in the article Tiempo notes that

Ortez Sequeira leyó el informe de la Fundación Hagamos Democracia que establece que a esas alturas Porfirio Lobo Sosa tenía el 55. 72 por ciento de los votos frente a 38. 50 por ciento de Elvin Santos, resultados que a su juicio son similares a los del Tribunal Supremo Electoral y que únicamente difieren en el abstencionismo.

[Ortez Sequeira read the report of the FHD that established that at these levels Porfirio Lobo Sosa had 55.72 % of the votes against 38.5% for Elvin Santos, results that in his judgment are similar to those of the TSE and that they only differ in abstentionism.]

Well, duh.

So let's take a close look at the votes Tiempo reports, announced at the same time by the TSE:

Candidate	number of votes	percentage of total
Porfirio Lobo	897,335	52.29%
Elvin Santos	613,384	35.74%
Bernardo Martinez	35.593	2.07%
Felícito Avila	31,174	1.81%
César Ham	29,006	1.70%
Votos Blancos	42,998	2.51%
Votos Nulos	66,537	3.87%
Totales	1,716,027	100.00%

Take a good look here at the number of blank and null votes: 109,535 out of 1,716,027 reported; 6.38% of the votes cast are ambiguous, and this should include protest votes.

So the percentage of valid votes represents either 41.22% of the eligible voters (if we take the exit polling as our guide, and deduct the invalid votes) or 54.92% (if we take the declared turnout estimate of the TSE, which international media have accepted, and again, deduct the invalid votes).

We would suggest people need to look carefully and skeptically at the real vote counts as they come in.

By people, we mean scholars and interested public, obviously, not the US State Department, which would recognize the election no matter what.

While Tiempo has been the sole newspaper abstaining from pro-coup reporting, it is not pro-resistance either; it seems genuinely to be trying to uphold some ideal of reliable journalism.

What the election results reported there are telling us is that, far from transparent, the more than 60% participation rate the TSE wants us to circulate (which differs from their official polling agency's estimate of under 50%-- which would be in keeping with normal expectations, given previous trends) has to be looked at skeptically.

It is good propaganda: but it literally is unbelievable.

Mayoral race in San Pedro Sula

2009-11-30T06:52:00.000-08:00

San Pedro Sula, a city with an estimated population of 1 million to 1.5 million people, voted for a new mayor yesterday.

In a 1 million person population we'd expect 50.7 % to be of voting age, or 507,000 eligible voters, according to the TSE's own statements about the Honduran population. So what actually happened in San Pedro Sula, where yesterday there was public demonstration against the coup, and police repression of these demonstrators and of independent radio?

Expected turnout for San Pedro Sula, using the TSE's claim late Sunday of 61.3% participation, would be something like 307,ooo votes.

At 10 PM, the TSE's presidential vote tally had supposedly covered 61.86% of the votes.

Checking the math there to be sure this percentage is accurate, the reported total counted at that point of 1.716 million presidential ballots out of 4.6 million eligible voters of whom 61.3% were expected to vote matches this claimed percentage counted fairly well.

Unless something odd happened, we might thus expect that reports of other races at the same time would include the majority of the votes cast.

Yet La Prensa, last evening, in its Minute By Minute column, reported on far fewer than 100,000 votes for mayor of San Pedro Sula at the same time.

The results presented last night, on the basis of which the election for mayor was called, were:

Juan Carlos Zuniga (Liberal party) 33,185
Tuky Bendaña (Nationalist party) 29,796

This is a total of 62,981 votes.

Unless you want to claim that fewer people voted for Mayor than voted for President--the opposite of which was true in the last election-- the implication is that turnout in San Pedro was heading to be somewhat less than the 307,000 voters the TSE turnout estimates would claim.

How would San Pedro's reported numbers match up to the more modest (and we think, more believable) turnout estimates of the official exit polling? Remember that they said participation rates were just 47.6% of eligible voters.

This would lead us to expect ca. 240,000 voters in San Pedro Sula yesterday.

If the same proportion of votes were counted in San Pedro Sula by 10 PM, then we would expect something like 150,000 votes to have been reported.

Let's go further, and assume the registered level of null and void votes as were seen nationally (6.38%); we still would have expected to see about 140,000 votes reported.

Now, maybe they count the votes from the other races differently, or more slowly, or the precincts sampled for the national election somehow under-represent voting in San Pedro Sula.

But we will be watching to see what the final vote for mayor of San Pedro Sula actually is. And we suggest this kind of attention to local races will be well worthwhile for others as well.

State's Rich Fantasy Life

2009-11-30T06:09:00.000-08:00

The US State Department has weighed in on the election results in Honduras this morning, and indeed there are no surprises here.

Honduran Election

Ian Kelly
Department Spokesman
Washington, DC
November 29, 2009

We commend the Honduran people for peacefully exercising their democratic right to select their leaders in an electoral process that began over a year ago, well before the June 28 coup d'etat. Turnout appears to have exceeded that of the last presidential election. This shows that given the opportunity to express themselves, the Honduran people have viewed the election as an important part of the solution to the political crisis in their country.

Except that the turnout appears not to have exceeded the turnout in 2005, according to the TSE's own firm hired to make the statistical projections and do exit polling. They report a turnout of 47.6% versus the TSE's claim of a 61.3% turnout. Their report has a 2% confidence interval (accurate at 98% level) whereas the TSE's claim is just an assertion, with no numbers presented to back it up. Both sets of results were presented at the 10 pm TSE press conference, but notice who the State Department decided to listen to.

The Honduran people overwhelmingly expressed themselves. Forced democracy where they could not choose candidates who represented them was not the solution for them. It was status-quo or "no go" and they didn't go in droves, despite the State Department's blind eye. Anyone who thinks the election resolved anything in Honduras is naive.

We look forward to continuing to work with all Hondurans and encourage others in the Americas to follow the lead of the Honduran people in helping advance national reconciliation and the implementation of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord. Significant work remains to be done to restore democratic and constitutional order in Honduras, but today the Honduran people took a necessary and important step forward.

One wonders what fantasy world the State Department lives in that the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord will ever be implemented. I hate to tell you, but its dead. The ink wasn't even dry on the signatures when Thomas Shannon publicly agreed to recognize the results of the elections no matter what, nailing its coffin shut. You've made half-hearted efforts to resurrected it, but you're not Merlin. Its not going to come back to life.

So what's the likely US policy going forward? We've now recognized the sham election where exit polling suggests that fewer than half of the electorate actually participated. If the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord is dead and buried, as I contend, then I can only see the State Department returning to its practical, unprincipled stand, exemplified by Lew Anselem's comments on the elections, and a swift return to the status quo, a complete white-wash and acceptance of a 21rst century coup by our government. What a sad bunch of politicians.

TSE announces 61.3% Participation; other estimates range lower

2009-11-29T20:04:00.000-08:00

(Corrected at 8 AM EST) The Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) headed by Saul Escobar, reported in national broadcast at 10:00 pm, that turnout was 61.3%. He also reported they had preliminary, unaudited, results, from about 8,600 polling places (out of 15,300), that they had counted 1.7 million votes for all offices so far.

However, these were unaudited results because the system they had set up to verify the numbers transmitted by cell phone, which appears to have been to make a digital recording of the call, failed, so they have not been able to check that the numbers digitized and entered into the vote counting computers matched the numbers called in by the various polling places.

The TSE is spinning this turnout as just what you would expect given the recent trends, which they said was in line with a 6% per election decline in each of the last several elections, even though this is a supposed increase.

Already, La Prensa reports in their Minute by Minute column a turnout of 61.3 % which would be an increase, not a decrease, from the previous election. This would lead one to expect approximately 2.8 million votes.

So, what does this mean in terms of legitimacy of the election and effectiveness of the call for boycott by the Frente de Resistencia? Even by the TSE's numbers, which are unaudited and preliminary, and don't match with press reports, that's a 38.7% abstention rate.

The TSE had hired a polling firm to do exit polling. They presented a report the TSE conference as well. They sampled 1000 polling places (of the 15300) and reported only a 47.6% participation rate (at a 98% confidence level). This report is more in line with what the Frente de Resistencia. The polling firm further reported they saw a 7% decline in voting over 2005. The results reported by the TSE are based on their sample precincts.

Thus we can expect a great deal of interpretation being projected into the void.

El Tiempo, in a story projecting Pepe Lobo as winner, reported that the TSE had counted 570,954 votes from 4159 polling places "selected strategically to have the tendency in all the country". This is a sample of 27.2% of the planned polling places. While it would not scale directly (since other polling places could have larger numbers of voters) it is curious to see 1/3 of the polls yield only 500,000 votes, and still have claims for 62% turnout, which would project 2.8 million votes overall.

This would be implied by the turnout estimate Bloomberg reports, citing TSE magistrate Danny Matamoros (although it is unclear when Matamoros made this statement, whether before the 10 PM announcement over radio that we report on here, or after). Matamoros is widely quoted as claiming long lines of voters led to the indelible ink running out, which makes him seem rather invested in portraying this as a huge electoral turnout. As in most elections, we are likely to need to wait sometime for official figures, and meanwhile, unofficial claims will likely be taken up and repeated as if they were established facts.

The next thing to watch for are reports of the differences between votes cast and valid votes, to detect any effect from deliberate null voting.

For now, if the TSE's approved exit polling projection reported at 10 PM can be taken at face value (rather than the unsupported claim made at the same time), there was no massive turnout of Honduran voters yearning to use the ballot box to move beyond the coup. At best, there was a continuation of the long-established gradual discouragement of eligible voters about the worth of voting, which we have previously suggested is itself a kind of unorganized protest against elected government.

But it is also reasonable to propose that there was a measurable effect from the campaign to boycott the vote, whether we use Boz's numbers (and say that about 100,000 voters stayed home in protest) or suggest a different target number would have been reasonable in such a politicized election year.

That the results would favor Porfirio Lobo was never in question. The actual numbers are unvailable on the TSE website as of 8 am this morning, and the website for vitural observers that gave access to the cameras, is not broadcasting images of the count.

So much for the TSE's promise that they had a triple backup system that would prevent any delays in delivering the results. They made the results official without having actually successfully counted the votes.
RNS and RAJ

Rafael Alegria: 65-70% Abstention Nationwide.

2009-11-29T14:33:00.000-08:00

Radio Globo is reporting turnout from different polling places. Each polling place has about 300 names. In Tegucigalpa, turnout was varying between 30 and 45 percent according to heads of polling places. Radio Globo's reporters found that in some of those polling places outside of Tegucigalpa are reporting turnouts of 17-42 voters per polling place, so far today, with fewer than 30 minutes left to vote. Similar numbers in San Pedro and La Lima. Since the official story is that turnout is "massive" it will be fun to see the "official" numbers. The informal ones are quite an education.

Rafael Alegria, a leader of the Frente de Resistencia, is saying on Radio Globo, that their census of voter turnout suggests that anywhere from 65-70% of the electorate stayed home and did not vote today.

Polling Places Opened One Hour Longer, Running Out Of Ink

2009-11-29T13:24:00.000-08:00

The TSE took to the national radio network to announce that it was OK that voting places were running out of the indelible ink that was to be used to mark a finger of anyone that voted. The indelible ink was supposed to be a check on who had voted, but they admitted it was a redundant check, since they had the primary record in the register of who voted. Therefore they allowed as how polling places that ran out of ink could continue to let people vote.

The TSE also ordered that, in order to accomodate the multitude of voters, in what otherwise has been reported as a light turn out by the non-Honduran press, polling places in Honduras and the United States would remain open an extra hour, until 5 pm in Honduras.

They also repeated the threat to prosecute any public media, print or broadcast, that announces any results before they do.

Protests Tear Gassed in San Pedro Sula

2009-11-29T13:07:00.000-08:00

Early this afternoon, Radio Globo and Vos El Soberano report, that a peaceful protest that was marching towards the center of San Pedro Sula was dispersed with tear gas and water canons. Tiempo reported that 5 people were arrested, and a further 4 hurt, including a Reuters cameraman. The clash between protesters and the military was broadcast live on channel 6 in San Pedro Sula.

Radio Uno reports that 30 military are camped out on the first floor of its offices trying to get in to shut it down.

And then there were five

2009-11-28T20:53:00.000-08:00

The Russian news agency RIA Novosti, [link here should work] citing Honduran TV, reports Israel joining the US, Panama, Peru and Costa Rica pledging recognition of the election as long as it is calm.

Too bad the Honduran military chose today to attack the peaceful development project RED COMAL in Siguatepeque-- I will be waiting breathlessly for Israel to announce their retraction of recognition based on this assault of 50 soldiers on this group.

[Source for the latter report was email from Honduras: now posted on quotha.net and in briefer form on Vos el Soberano. Even better report from Quixote Center.]

What has the Supreme Court really said?

2009-11-28T15:19:00.000-08:00

One of the main developments this week was the long delayed conveyance of the Supreme Court's opinion about the issues surrounding the possible restoration of President Zelaya.

Greg Weeks is one of the few to have commented on the coverage in Honduran papers of the transmission of a report by the Honduran Supreme Court to the Congress. His summary, based on an article in the pro-coup La Prensa, concludes that the court report (which has not been released) says

Zelaya cannot be reinstated unless he faces the pending charges against him

And that this

means that Congress, which had been planning to vote on his reinstatement on December 2, won't be able to do so without contradicting the court.

Now, the report itself is not released, so any conclusions we can draw are dependent on reports in the press. So let's look at what the article Greg Weeks cited tells us (a full translation follows for those who want to check my work).

The La Prensa report is similar to others, and in particular, the direct quotes from the CSJ seem invariant even when other reports expand on the themes.

Focus in particular on what members of the court actually said.

The president of the CSJ, Jorge Rivera, declared that the Court "did not go deeply nor touch the base" of the question of the restitution or not of Zelaya, because it has cases pending against him...

He reaffirmed that Zelaya should submit himself to justice, although he reiterated that the CSJ did not pronounce in its report whether he should be restored or not.

(Another report expands on this point, quoting justice María Edith López Rivera “we cannot give an opinion because there still are legal cases pending in the Supreme Court of Justice”).

Just to underline this point, the report notes that

With the opinion of the CSJ, the National Congress now possesses the four reports that it solicited from the organs of State to base its debate, although it has clarified that those reports are not binding and that the decision about Zelaya only depends on the congressmembers. (emphasis added)

In other words: not only did the Supreme Court disclaim defining whether Zelaya could be restored-- since they would prejudice pending cases-- the National Congress has separately said that the reports it asked for were not binding on it.

Reports claiming something different based on quoted sources (as opposed to interpretations by the reporter), is a comment attributed to the spokesman of the court, Danilo Izaguirre:

"It is the same as what the Court said on the 21st of August, while he has pending reckonings with justice he cannot return to power".

This is the comment, clearly in response to an unreported question, that the English-language media, such as the AP, have played up.

But it directly contradicts what the justices themselves are quoted as saying while delivering their report to the National Congress.

Indeed, this was not what the August 21 Supreme Court opinion said; instead, like the present statements, it limited itself to insisting that the existing legal cases would have to be pursued if President Zeaya were restored:

In relation to the return of the citizen Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales to the Presidency of the Republic, until the conclusion of the present governmental term, the 27 of January, it should be taken into account that as has been mentioned previously, there exist penal actions presented by the Attorney General of the Republic; in consequence and in strict legality as long as there do not exist other applicable legal dispositions he cannot avoid having to submit himself to the established proceedings in the penal processual code.

So, what the Supreme Court said then and repeats now is that President Zelaya will have to have his day in court-- the day in court he was denied by being forcibly expatriated on June 28.

Then why is the impression being given that the CSJ report constrains Congress (when the pro-coup press states clearly the reports it solicited are not binding on it) and that the CSJ made a recommendation about restoral (when the CSJ members said it isn't offering such a thing because there are cases open against Zelaya before it-- which would be prejudiced by the court making public statements now)?

In reply, we can note three contributing factors:

(1) some reports (for example, this one from the AFP) say the CSJ reached judgments on the charges against Zelaya. This repeats the original big lie tactic of the first days after the coup, when people claimed-- equally falsely-- that the bill of charges dated June 26 was a verdict by the court, rather than being the accusations submitted for its judgment.

(2) most reports (like this one in elPeriodico de Guatemala) claim that the Supreme Court told the National Congress that Zelaya could not be restored. This one can only be explained as a form of spin, given the explicit disclaimers by the court. It is often combined, as in this example, with misrepresentation of the June 26 Supreme Court order, claiming it ordered Zelaya's removal from office rather than his detention and deposition for the case brought against him.

(3) more broadly, people continue to be confused about the implications for a sitting president in Honduras of having legal charges placed against him. It would be helpful for people to review previous posts here about immunity, impunity, and impeachment, but the bottom line is, there is no impeachment because there is no immunity from prosecution; but like any other citizen, the president has a right to due process, including the presumption of innocence.

That makes the insistence of the CSJ, both in August (in its comments on the original proposed San Jose Accord) and now on reminding people that there are charges pending a little confusing. There is nothing in the legal procedures for trying a high government official that suggests he or she can be, or must be, removed from office while under prosecution-- that would require a presumption of guilt, and would seem to be a denial of due process.

But maybe this is one of those places noted in international studies where the Honduran legal system has not yet caught up with the change, made relatively recently, that introduced the presumption of innocence. Before then, a person accused of a crime had to prove his or her innocence-- and that would have made staying in office tricky.

So: we would repeat our conclusion of August here: the Supreme Court really said nothing new; and nothing that would prevent President Zelaya being reinstated. What they have noted, acting to represent their branch of government, is that he faces trial on charges. Since there is no amnesty in the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord, this obviously an accepted condition of possible restoral. Even if the legal cases were to proceed and reach a conviction, and that conviction were upheld on appeal, until conviction, the accused is innocent-- and could carry out his legal duties.

Oh, and the reported remarks of court spokesperson Danilo Izaguirre? assuming he was not misquoted, he was engaging in interpretation of the report, interpretation the court members themselves refrained from publicly. That interpretation presumably is based on the assumption that President Zelaya would have to be suspended from the exercise of office during trial.

The revised Penal Processual Code, Decreto 99-9-E (published in La Gaceta May 20, 2000, and effective February 20, 2002-- and therefore in use just a little more than seven years) actually has something-- well, really, everything to say-- about this, in its Title VI. This concerns measures that can be taken to ensure that the defendant is available for trial. Article 172 requires that there be sufficient reason to think someone might flee before any of the listed measures are adopted. (Remember the claim that Zelaya needed to be seized in a raid due to fear he would flee? this is why that claim was made.) Article 173 lists the available methods to ensure the defendant will not flee (or destroy evidence, a second rationale allowed). The courts can adopt "one or more" of the listed methods, which range from imprisonment to detention at home to monitoring by an officer of the court and/or periodic reporting to the court.

Number 12 on this list is

Suspension in the exercise of office, when an offense is attributed against public administration.

This is, so far, the only provision in the penal code that we have found that would imply an inability by an accused government official to remain in office while the case against him or her was heard. We could charitably assume that the conclusion Izaguirre is drawing-- against the explicit declarations of the Supreme Court justices-- is that Zelaya will not only have to undergo trial, but would need to be suspended from exercise in office. But that conclusion anticipates, and thus prejudices, any actual legal proceeding.

Which, we would remind readers, could also result in a verdict of innocent-- or else the claim that the court system is fair is entirely empty.

Whether Izaguirre also is suffering from confusion about what the procedure would have to be; or was expressing an opinion that being tried would require the president to step down; treating Izaguirre like the authoritative voice, in the face of the statements of the court justices themselves, makes no sense.

*******CSJ: Zelaya should submit himself to justice*****

The Supreme Court of Justice, CSJ, affirmed that the ex president Manuel Zelaya should submit to the trials that he has pending, which would impede the National Congress from restoring him the 2nd of December without violating the law.

A commission of four magistrates, headed by the president of the Judicial Power, Jorge Rivera, arrived yesterday at 11 AM at the Legislative Palace to turn over their report about the fifth point of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord, that establishes the power of Congresss to decide whether to turn back the officeholding of the Executive to its state before the 28th of June.

In the opinion delivered to Congress, which on this coming December 2nd will debate whether or not to restore Zelaya, the CSJ reaffirmed the criteria that it issued the past 21 of August.

The magistrate Jacobo Cálix affirmed that 14 of the 15 magistrates arrived at a consensus on the document delivered to the Legislature and the the same conforms to the Constitution of Honduras and its legal framework, but he did not specify who voted against it nor why.

The president of the CSJ, Jorge Rivera, declared that the Court "did not go deeply nor touch the base" of the question of the restitution or not of Zelaya, because it has cases pending against him, but that it did contribute "the elements so that the decision could be taken".

He affirmed that the report was based "on all the deeds that were committed before the 28th of June and what has been provoked later".

He reaffirmed that Zelaya should submit himself to justice, although he reiterated that the CSJ did not pronounce in its report whether he should be restored or not.

Rivera delivered the document in the office of the secretary of the Congress together with a commission of magistrates, without specifying its content because, he said, the deputies should know it first.

"The honorable National Congress now has available the information to analyze the general context of the official and public actions of the citizen José Manuel Zelaya Rosales that will permit them to assess if the same were realized in conformity to that imposed in the Constitution of the Republic of a legal order" indicated the CSJ in a communique.

CN has the 4 reports

With the opinion of the CSJ, the National Congress now possesses the four reports that it solicited from the organs of State to base its debate, although it has clarified that those reports are not binding and that the decision about Zelaya only depends on the congressmembers.

The Public Prosecutor, Attorney General of the Republic and the National Commissioner of Human Rights, Ramón Custodio have already delivered their opinions.

The Supreme Court indicated in August, in relation to the return of Zelaya to power, that "there exist penal actions presented against him by the Attorney General of the Republic".

Therefore, it said then, "while there do not exist other applicable legal requirements, he cannot avoid that he would have to submit himself to the proceedings established in the penal processual legislation".

Zelaya has an order of capture for offenses of which he was accuses in relation with the popular poll that he intended to celebrate June 28 to promote a Constituent Assembly, when he was deposed by the National Congress, that designated Roberto Micheletti in his place.

Shoddy reporting or more lies from the VOA?

2009-11-28T14:37:00.000-08:00

A story posted today on the Voice of America website manages to perpetuate two major falsehoods in the space of just twelve paragraphs, and also fails to accurately represent the split between countries committed to recognizing tomorrow's vote and those that have publically declared they will not do so. Not a very good scorecard: 3 major problems in 12 paragraphs: barely 75% correct.

First, the story claims that

Both Mr. Lobo and Mr. Santos support Mr. Zelaya's removal from power

Yet both Elvin Santos and Pepe Lobo have maintained a (largely unconvincing) claim not to have supported the coup. Lobo has, in campaigning, been quoted as saying once elected he will reach out to Zelaya.

Then, even worse, the story says

Both candidates also signed a pledge to respect the outcome of the vote and honor the constitutional ban on running for re-election. Mr. Zelaya was removed from office after pushing for a referendum to reconsider the ban.

To echo Greg Weeks, what would it take to get the media to stop repeating this inaccurate claim?

So, two outright incorrect statements. Then comes the misleading or incomplete report on recognition:

Brazil and Argentina have said they will not recognize the election because doing so would legitimize the coup. Costa Rica and Peru have suggested they are ready to recognize the vote.

Hmm. Now, who is missing from the list of countries that have said they will recognize the vote? I don't mean the US-- the previous paragraph says this has "divided Latin America", thus leaving the US position to one side. But what about the original statement by Panama's president Martinelli that has been widely trumpeted up till now?

And of course, the mention of Brazil and Argentina leaves out the explicit statement of Guatemala that it also will not recognize the election.

Is there something that links Panama and Guatemala (other than that they are Central American) that justifies not including them?

And of course, the entire Rio Group is on record as being opposed to the election. Do they have to come out, one by one, to be counted?

Reporting like this is inevitable, it seems. But it seems especially regrettable that it is coming from the VOA, which describes itself as

a multimedia international broadcasting service funded by the U.S. Government through the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

and is widely recognized as speaking for the government.

Pre-election update

2009-11-27T16:43:00.000-08:00

As the days count down to Sunday's vote in Honduras, there are four things we suggest people should be watching.

First: setting expectations

In a recent post, Boz has tried to project what he feels are the levels of turnout that would give clear signals either of success of the boycott, or of clear support for the claim that elections will allow moving on. Looking at recent election cycles, he says

There should be about 2.25 million total votes and about 2.1 million valid votes in 2009 if raw number trends continue as they have for the past decade.

So, Boz sets his expectations for clear-cut success of the boycott as a valid vote of 1.5 million or less; and for the de facto regime to claim no effect on the election, turnout of 2.4 million votes. I won't repeat his arguments; go read them for yourself; the main thing to take away here is that he is saying a turnout of 25% of the eligible voters will be clearly lower than expected, and a turnout of 50% of eligible voters would allow the de facto regime to claim legitimacy.

(For the record, turnout in 2005 was 55% according to the numbers Boz is relying on. So he is projecting a 5% drop would have happened this year no matter what-- which we would remind readers is an index of disaffection with the Honduran political system, the fundamental problem that these elections will not solve, and may well exacerbate.)

Boz makes the argument that in addition to not coming to vote, it is possible to protest an election by casting a

blank or null ballot, which will reduce valid votes.

So, the gap between the number of valid votes and total votes this time around might include protest blank or null ballots-- except for the fact that Honduran press reports efforts to discourage null votes before they are placed in the ballot box.

An article in La Tribuna, on which RNS commented previously, appeared under the headline "TSE expects to reduce null votes":

The authorities of the TSE intend a drastic reduction of null votes by orienting the electors how they should exercise their suffrage... The TSE expects to reduce a great percentage of the null vote or the lack of voters, for which it is important to develop step by step each one of the activities that permit the Honduran to freely vote.

So, one confounding issue for interpreting the number of invalid votes (the difference between votes cast and valid votes) as evidence of voter boycotting is that there is a more deliberate attempt to reduce inadvertent null votes this year than previously.

Second: spinning declarations of potential recognition

The biggest prize for the de facto regime has been, of course, the regrettable decision by the US not only to say they might recognize the elections, but the subsequent increasingly strident claims that this election will somehow solve the whole crisis (and thus everyone else should get on board). Yet, as the New York Times correctly observes, the US has not officially declared an unconditional intention to recognize the election, saying "American officials have implied that the Obama administration will support the outcome".

Lesser prizes, Panama, Peru, probably Colombia, and today, Costa Rica, are consistently reported in Honduran pro-coup media as unconditional, even though these also have included the caution that recognition will depend on the election being "transparent". Mexico, widely expected to trend with this group, has actually been careful

The number of countries stating even more clearly that they will not recognize the Sunday vote outcome is of course much larger than this handful of pro-election countries, although sometimes, reporting obscures the actual extent of disapproval of the election.

In addition to the explicit announcements of Brazil, Argentina, and Guatemala against the election, the 23 Latin American and Caribbean countries making up the Rio Group and those of ALBA are on record against the coup-sponsored elections.

The position of Spain, influential in the EU, refusing to recognize the election is not prominently mentioned in most English-language press coverage, although Bloomberg does so in its story.

While not an official governmental view, it is worth noting as well the recent call of a group of MPs in Great Britain against recognition as well.

Broad rejection of the elections by the nations of the Americas should surely outweigh the endorsement of it by the US and a few pragmatic allies. And the voices heard from Europe are also voices of concern, not support for this dead end masquerading as a way out.

Third: overtures of conciliation

These are already coming from many directions. Honduran law professor Leo Valladares is quoted as saying

"Look, the negotiation between Zelaya and Micheletti was going nowhere ... Maybe, by changing the faces of the government, tensions will begin to subside and the new government . . . could be more conciliatory. Whoever wins cannot turn a deaf ear to the demands of the resistance."

Pepe Lobo, considered the likely recipient of the majority of votes on Sunday and almost ordained as the next president, seems to agree, being quoted as saying:

"Our mission is not just to win elections but to produce a change beginning with the reconciliation and unity of Hondurans"

and even more daringly, suggesting

that if he wins, he would include Zelaya in a national reconciliation talks and suggested that the ousted leader would be able to leave his refuge inside the Brazilian Embassy without fear of arrest. ...
"They have to get him out. If not, how?" said Lobo...
"What I know is that if we want peace for Honduras, we have to bring him into the dialogue."

Fourth: Finally, press coverage that admits the election is the culmination of the coup

The mainstream press is catching up with reality, a little bit too late, and a whole lot too little.

For example, read the LA Times story headlined "Honduras upcoming vote a boon to de facto rulers". It acknowledges that recognizing the election hands a victory to the authors of the coup d'etat of June 28, quoting Christopher Sabatini, senior policy director for the Americas Society:

"The U.S. needed a way out,... But what we've done is allow a coup to stand. And I fear this will erode regional consensus about the defense of democracy. . . . The U.S. has lost its moral authority to push back"

The New York Times quotes even more blunt commentary about the damage done to US influence in Latin America, noting the view of many Latin Americans that "recognizing the election will essentially legitimize a coup in a region that has been consolidating its democracies":

“The United States will become isolated — that is very bad for the United States and its relationship with Latin America,” the Brazilian foreign policy adviser, Marco Aurélio Garcia, said ... very important countries — the majority in terms of population and political weight — won’t recognize” the results of the election.

Even harsher criticism of US policy blunders comes from other directions.

Consider this statement by Robert White, the former Carter Administration ambassador to El Salvador :

The clumsy handling of this issue when they had the backing of the entire hemisphere is simply an embarrassment.

Or this one, by Lisa Haugaard of the Latin America Working Group

“It makes it look like coups are a viable way out, and that is a terrible message for the region”

Conclusion:

This is the legacy of Sunday's electoral exercise:

We are left trying to figure out how low participation has to be to be interpreted as a sign of electoral protest, ignoring plummeting participation election after election which should long ago have been seen as electoral protest.

We are left with the spectacle of a US that declared a multilateral foreign policy in Trinidad and Tobago openly leading a tiny minority of countries of the Americas committed to recognizing the elections, alienating governments that see it putting the "stamp of approval" on the coup.

Which, remember, is taking place under the supervision of the armed forces, who have stockpiled plenty of tear gas for the election, prompting Amnesty International to express concerns about just how fair and open this election really can be:

There's an environment of fear and intimidation in Honduras ...We have seen an increased level of harassment against those who are seen as opposed to the de facto authorities.

Far from "starting from zero", as President Obama suggested, the situation in Honduras on Monday will stay precisely where it is-- with added sources of conflict provided by what will without a doubt be disputes about the Sunday vote.

Millennium Challenge Corp. Pushing to Restart Honduras Loans

2009-11-25T22:19:00.000-08:00

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) office in Honduras established a drop dead date for the Central American Bank of Economic Integration (BCIE in Spanish) to restart loans to Honduras totalling $130 million.

"The resources of the BCIE are still suspended and we need a determination by February 2010 at the latest, or we'll have to phase out the program," said Martin Ochoa, director of the MCC office in Honduras.

The BCIE loan supports work on the "dry canal" project, specifically a stretch of road from Tegucigalpa to Rio del Hombre.

State Of Emergency Declared

2009-11-25T12:24:00.000-08:00

Decreto PCM-30-2009 declares a national state of emergency for all activities related to the election in Honduras. The main thing it does is authorize the Secretary of State for Defense to enter into contracts for military operations, material and supplies related to the election without first getting bids, and authorizes him to employ the 5,000 reservists for the election.

Decreto PCM-29-2009 authorizes the employment of 5,000 reservists for the time they are needed, starting November 13. It does not specify a date for demobilizing them.

Decreto PCM-31-2009 authorizes a national disarmament starting on November 23, lasting until a second order is issued. It authorizes the confiscation of "all firearms, and the like", and orders the Security minister to carry it out, with the cooperation of the ministers of Government and Justice, and Defense.

Government Admits Blocking Channel 36

2009-11-25T08:35:00.000-08:00

An Italian website reports that, during an interview, Carlos Lopez Contreras, the de facto government's Foreign Minister, admitted that the government had banned Channel 36. Lopez Contreras told the Italian news source, Adnkronos International, that the ban on Canal 36 was justified.

"If we look at respect for freedom of speech anywhere in the world, and you actually hear what the channel is saying daily, you would see that in any country in the world, with or without elections, this channel would have been suspended."

Channel 36, also known as Cholusat Sur, publicizes the hypocrisy of the de facto government.

Reduced Expectations

2009-11-24T13:41:00.000-08:00

Today the Supreme Election Tribunal (TSE) began setting expectations about voter turnout for the election in Honduras. They also began better explaining the discrepancies in the number of voters on the official voting list, versus the population numbers for Honduras.

Adrienne Pine, over on Quotha, observed that something about the 4.6 million person official voting list, and the 7.6 million person official population just didn't add up. Today, Saul Escobar, president of the TSE, admitted that the real voting census is 3.4 million, but that there are an additional 1 million registered voters outside the country. The voters in the exterior have not come out to vote in the last two elections.

Escobar's number of 3.4 million is 44.7% of the population. However, to complicate things, an El Heraldo article from yesterday tells us that 49.3% of the population (3,737,976 persons) are under 18, the legal voting age, leaving 50.7% (3,844,125 persons) over 18, and a total population of 7,582,101. The missing 444,000 voters presumably are the disenfranchised who are not registered to vote. If Escobar is correct and there are around 1 million registered voters outside the country, the true population of Hondurans is more than 8.6 million, but unknown.

The de facto government has been calling for a massive turnout. In 2005, the turnout was 56%. That was the lowest turnout since the 1982 constitution entered into effect. Today the TSE began to set our expectations for how massive a turnout to expect.

Roberto Micheletti said that he had information there would be an 80% turnout. The TSE president, Saul Escobar, expects a 60% turnout, slightly higher than the 2005 election, but hardly massive. Anonymous TSE officials told another La Tribuna reporter that they expected between 2 million and 2.4 million voters, or, at best, 52.6% turnout, which would be even lower than the 2005 election. This official said, "it would be bad if we barely got over a million voters, but we hope for at least 2 million, a number similar to the 2005 election."

So the TSE is reducing our expectations for voter turnout, from slightly better than the last election, to slightly worse than the last election.

Valenzuela Dreams

2009-11-23T15:57:00.000-08:00

Arturo Valenzuela represented the United States at the closed session of the OAS today. In it, he openly broke with the majority of the OAS representatives by urging them to accept the results of the November 29 elections in Honduras. Only Panama and the US spoke in favor of recognizing the elections.

It appears that Mr. Valenzuela is something of a dreamer with an active fantasy life. EFE reports (and again there are as yet no English language sources) that Valenzuela said the Micheletti's little vacation opened a space that should help expedite the formation of a unity government.

"We value this step and urge that it facilitate the formation of a national unity government, such as is established in the accord of October 30."

Exactly how does this expedite the formation of a unity government? What actually does Valenzuela think has changed? Micheletti is still in charge of the de facto government. Its not as if anyone else is now calling the shots.

I'm sure Mr. Valenzuela knows that Micheletti's "vacation" does not actually open any space for anything to happen in Honduras, but I guess he can dream....

....but that's not how foreign policy should be made.

Militarized Elections

2009-11-23T11:52:00.000-08:00

Militarization is a reality. Today, Sunday, passing the turn off to Gracias on the western highway, not only were there police and troops but there was a machine gun on top of the cabin of a pick up with a soldier in the back. This is a place where there are often Transit Police check points (seat belts, non-functioning lights, etc.) But recently it has also been "manned" by the military and police (not just transit police).

So wrote a commentator on another of our blog posts.

Honduran elections have been militarized by definition since 1998. Article 272 of the Constitution spells it out:

to guarantee the free exercise of suffrage, [the Armed Forces] store, transport, and watch over the electoral materials and security of the process.

To that end, the President puts them at the control of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) one month before the election until the election is called and a winner declared.

So, we come to this year's elections. This time things are different. On June 28, the Armed Forces actively intervened in the constitutional government, and as their statements after the coup d'etat showed, they did so based in part by assuming they had a special active role in protecting the Constitution, and that this extended to deciding what kinds of political perspectives they would allow.

Since then, the Armed Forces has been deeply involved in suppression of civil rights in the country, changing forever the way those members of the public who have been threatened will see them.

Now Colonel Roger Alexis Turcios, who is in charge of the logistics and planning for the election, was asked if anything made this time different than in the past. He replied, "The security measures that we are taking this time are stronger and more strict". In the name of security, the military have expanded their role in this election.

12,000 police and 11,000 soldiers are assigned to guard 15,269 polling places. As part of the extended security measures for this election, the military were authorized to call up, arm, and equip an additional 5,000 reservists. "There are 11 military regions and each has a commander responsible for security in his region, and has his orders and plans," said General Bartolome Funez Castellon.

Because of their fear of an election boycott, the TSE has trained the 530 public prosecutors, as well as military and police officers, in what constitutes electoral crimes. General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez said, "we know that there are people that are inducing the public to not go and vote, for which they are committing an electoral crime, contrary to what they should do which is to urge lots of people to get out and vote ('vayan masivamente a votar') because we have chosen the democratic system which is the best in the world."

Vasquez Velasquez also said "We are doing sweeps at a national level, of reconnaissance, and also intelligence work, to detect if there are any problems in any areas and treat them with viable solutions."

Over the weekend, the police and military set up checkpoints around the country, where all vehicles including public transportation were stopped, and everyone's papers checked.

Friday the de facto government ordered a nationwide disarmament, so today these checkpoints started frisking everyone and confiscating any weapons found, even if the bearer has a licence to carry the weapon.

Foreigners are being asked to justify their reason for being in the country.

When people come to vote, they're going to pass a line of police about 300 feet (100 meters) from the polling place. Each polling place will be surrounded by a group of soldiers placed 150 feet away. There will be additional guards protecting election materials that will be stored nearby.

Inside the polling place will be "custodios", people designated as responsible for the management and provisioning of election supplies. Each of these will be a soldier who will authorize the release of more ballots, or indelible ink, from the nearby stores.

Now, this takes place against a background of threats against those who wish not to participate in this election, despite the fact that the constitutional call for obligatory voting has never been enforced by individual prosecution. As early as August, this was already emerging as a troubling theme linked to support for an enhanced role for the military in elections.

It takes place against a background of letters sent to municipal mayors throughout the country, directing them to send in lists of those identified as members of the resistance, on the theory that being a member of the resistance implies an intention to engage in some form of anti-electoral violence (as opposed to advocacy for electoral boycotts, which do not meet the definitions of anti-electoral offenses as specified in the electoral law).

And above all: it takes place against the background of the military coup d'etat and military repression since then.

This is the reality of the "free and transparent" elections that are promised for November 29.

Elections: reject, accept, or other?

2009-11-22T12:33:00.000-08:00

In his usual thought-provoking way, boz offers a counter to the more widespread progressive position on the upcoming Honduran elections, outlining

the case for not rejecting elections in Honduras (note the double negative is on purpose), even if elections are not an ideal solution.

His argument has the following points (and I urge others to read them before reading the rest of my post; go ahead, I can wait): moving on; new leadership; beyond the presidency; don't prejudge; most Hondurans want elections; imperfect elections recognized all the time; and, for my purposes, the money paragraph:

Better than the alternative. Canceling or postponing elections is a serious action. If they're canceled, and the de facto government refuses to reinstitute Zelaya, then what? Micheletti remains as president? New president is named by Congress? Assuming the coup government won't let Zelaya return, the options other than elections are worse than holding an imperfect election. Those options definitely lead away democracy, while elections at least open the possibility for reestablishing democracy.

I want to suggest that whatever the merits of the other points, this one misses another possibility: maybe there are more than two alternatives; more than the two bad choices of recognizing an election conducted under extreme repression and violation of the rule of law, or rejecting it and with it the possibility of a future resolution for the innocent millions.

Zelaya and his government have suggested one such alternative, which boz rejects. That would involved rescheduling the election, allowing the outcome of congressional consideration of reinstating the president to precede the election. The main legal problem with rescheduling the election for sometime between now and the mandated inaugural date in January is that it violates the constitution, but not a clause that is unchangeable. The main pragmatic problem with rescheduling the election for later is that it is expensive. But this is surely something the international community could help with.

But boz's concerns with this involve neither of these, but rather, a purely political issue: what happens if the congress does not vote to reinstate Zelaya?

Under the terms of the (now-repudiated) Tegucigalpa/San Jose Accord, this was a risk President Zelaya accepted, so at that point, if he objected, it would be reasonable for the international community to change their position on the elections.

I think there should be no mystery about what would happen in this hypothetical scenario: the negotiation for the unity and national reconciliation government would have one fewer option for who should head the government, being forced to choose between Micheletti or a third party.

(This is, for me, one of the main reasons proceeding with forming that government before the decision about Zelaya is made makes no sense. If we accept that a unity government is negotiated between the parties, not imposed by one on the other, then one of the things up for negotiation is who would head it? a decision on Zelaya was therefore critical since without that, how would negotiators know if he would be accepted as head? for that matter: how do you ask prospective cabinet ministers to serve in a government whose head they do not know?)

Now, as I said, the call for postponing elections is one alternative to recognizing the November 29 exercise or rejecting it. The constitutional issues are open to solution by passing a congressional amendment to allow a delay in this year's election. But let's accept that getting Congress to do this is even more unlikely than getting them to vote on restoring Zelaya in advance of the election (which I personally think they are reluctant to do not because Zelaya could disrupt the election, but because voting on the record could be used against them in the campaign).

I still have problems with boz's suggestion that we accept an imperfect election and the will of the (slim) majority of the Honduran people, and get on with an election so new leadership can be put in place; and accept the (counter-factual) assertion that the Supreme Electoral Tribunal is independent of the Micheletti government; and acknowledge that the candidates running were all selected prior to the coup (ignoring the barriers placed in the way of many candidates by the imposed restraints on civil liberties) and that there are local and congressional elections at stake as well as the presidency.

I do not see that what follows is that accepting the November 29 elections under the de facto regime will actually accomplish what he hopes they will:

New people make it more likely we can move past the ugly politics of the last five months.

Unfortunately, the two major candidates still in the race are by no means "new people". Each is closely tied to the coup, and either will suffer from the legacy of his participation in government before and after June 28. The coup will remain a spectral presence in Honduras long past January 2010, just as previous coups continue to shape the attitudes of the people.

I think there is a fundamental contradiction in the utopian hope boz expresses that

elections at least open the possibility for reestablishing democracy.

Depends what we mean by "democracy": and it is this very thing that has been at issue in the Zelaya administration's attempt to move from a rigged representational democracy to a democracy with broader popular participation.

Elections held under an illegal government taint the outcome for a considerable proportion of the population: and yes, the number who do not want elections is a minority, but it is a large minority.

Democracies are at their best concerned with ensuring that even minorities believe that the process that brought political opponents to office was fair. And I think there is no doubt that for those who oppose the de facto regime and want to see the president who was elected in 2005 restored to complete his term in office, the very notion of democracy has been damaged in ways that a recognizably more-imperfect-than-normal election will not heal.

So here's another option to add to the either/or of recognizing/rejecting the November 29 elections: if we agree that international observers will make little difference on the ground; and accepting that the de facto regime will play out this election no matter what; and acknowledging that the TSE will validate election results that a large number of Honduras will think resulted from fraud, no matter what else happens; there is still a kernel of truth to this one sentence in boz's post:

I think dealing with Lobo or Santos once they have been elected by a majority of Hondurans will be easier than dealing with Micheletti.

Yes. So why not wait until whoever is "elected" in November is inaugurated in January before making any moves to recognize the government?

Recognizing the elections of November legitimates the de facto regime and whitewashes the coup d'etat of June 28.

This would weaken, not strengthen, any claim to democratic representation that might be made by the president-elect.

Meanwhile, it does absolutely no harm to that future Honduran government-- and much potential good-- if they remain unrecognized between November and January. The international community could use that time to discuss what conditions would need to be met by the (now safely elected) government of 2010-2014 to ensure that Honduras merits re-admission to the OAS, and acceptance as a legitimate state. And the lack of recognition of the de facto regime could allow the next government to move away from the authors of the coup in a clearer way. Think of the rhetorical power that might come if the person declared the winner of the November election condemned the coup d'etat that cast doubt on his election.

Among the issues I would like to see on the table in such a scenario would be acknowledging that the coup d'etat was extra-legal; dismissal of the politically motivated prosecutions of opposition government officials that has ramped up under the de facto regime from an already unacceptable level; and repudiation of the militarization of society that has led to deaths, beatings, and intimidation for thousands of Hondurans-- a minority, yes, but a minority that deserves protection under the law, and a minority that disproportionately represents sectors such as social activists, gender rights activists and people of alternative sexual status, indigenous leaders, and union activists.

As long as we are engaging in hypothetical arguments about possible routes to democracy, I prefer one that does not include ever giving Roberto Micheletti and those propping him up, including the military, the imprimatur of the international community.

Guatemala will not recognize elections; El Heraldo complains

2009-11-21T12:02:00.000-08:00

Even pro-coup media like El Heraldo have to report the news when it is this clear; Guatemala will not recognize the elections.

So, how did this pro-coup outlet spin the clear and principled stand of Guatemala-- which I defy any of our commentators to dismiss as merely a leftist dupe (while recognizing they likely will reject it as a country of no importance, continuing to exhibit their "pragmatism" which in fact is an embrace of a specific global political order)?

Simple: Guatemala's declaration described the decision as in agreement with the OAS position. The Heraldo report then goes on to say

It is worth pointing out that the secretary general of the OAS, José Miguel Insulza, aserted on numerous occasions that he would endorse the elections if the Hondurans achieved an accord, which they did, to resolve the political crisis.

The accord was signed but Manuel Zelaya, on understanding that it was unfavorable, decided not to send the list of candidates to make up the Cabinet of Unity and National Reconciliation.

In other words: OAS is going back on its promise to recognize elections as long as there was an accord; because the official story in Honduras is that Zelaya was the one who broke faith with the accord. While the international community, including OAS and members of the verification commission, say otherwise, don't expect the pro-coup media to cover that.

More: this noxious little story goes on to spread the big lie that everyone in Honduras is firmly committed to going to the polls:

In Honduras, all the political, economic, and social sectors maintain firm their position to go to the polls the 29th of November, in the way that the Constitution of the Republic ordains.

Now, outside Honduras, we know that isn't true, because we have seen the letter from 300+ candidates withdrawing from congressional and local races, and the statement of the Frente de Resistencia about not participating. But of course, these do not constitute part of the "political and social sectors" recognized by the editors of the pro-coup newspapers. But surely, some of their readers will put two and two together and wonder, if this is true, why are there those reports of the police putting together lists of people to be picked up for advocating election boycotts?

The surrealism of the pro-coup spin continues with one sad line:

The US maintains firm its position to recognize the process.

Yes indeed. Notice what has been lost in translation and left along the side of the long road down for US policy: apparently, we will recognize the elections no matter what; fraud or no fraud; violence of no violence. Of course, we have been honing our ability to recognize new governments that result from fraudulent elections while trying simultaneously to take the high moral ground recently, so maybe State will manage the miracle of recognition without approval that seems to be the new normal here.

And we cannot leave out the next piece of the Heraldo's attempt to minimize the statement of the government of Guatemala that it will not recognize the elections:

On Guatemala's part, the elections will be observed by members of the Committee of Commercial, Industrial, and Financial Associations.

So there, official government: we don't need you, we have your businessmen and bankers. New world order, anyone?

There is another curious detail about this news item, that draws out the semiotician in me: the line above the headline irrelevantly notes that Patricia Rodas, Zelaya cabinet minister, attended a conference of "leftist parties". The first sentence of the actual article cites the Guatemalan chancellor, who is coincidentally named Rodas as well-- Haroldo Rodas. This is a brilliant piece of guilt by association: a syllogism, I think (readers with better knowledge of classic logic correct me, please): if Patricia Rodas is a leftist, then all Rodas's are leftist, so Hector Rodas is a leftist...

Channel 36 Off Air Again

2009-11-20T14:19:00.000-08:00

Channel 36, Cholusat Sur, has been kicked off the air by "interference" with its signal, technology the de facto government sought to purchase in El Salvador right after the coup. Basically what's going on is that the de facto government has brought up a transmitter on the same frequency as that of Cholusat Sur, blocking its signal. The rogue transmitter is broadcasting cowboy movies and pornography according to station owner Esdras Amado López.

Lopez filed a complaint today with CONATEL.

This, by the way, is why "access by candidates to the media" is a good criterion, but not a very complete criteria to use to judge the freeness and transparency of the elections.

Micheletti Fools State Department

2009-11-20T10:12:00.000-08:00

RAJ and I wondered last night as we drove home, who the intended audience for Micheletti's rather empty gesture was. To refresh your memory, what Roberto Micheletti offered to consider doing was step out of the public spotlight for a week, but first, he would have to consult with everyone. Its a hollow offer because its only an offer to step out of the public spotlight, not to step aside from office. As his Minister of the presidency, Rafael Pineda noted, "he will only absent himself from public functions, not necessarily from the responsibilities to administer the interests of state."

We couldn't see an internal audience for Micheletti's statement, so assumed an international audience was intended. Indeed, because of the way the statement was crafted, using subjunctives, we wondered who would be suckered into thinking he was actually leaving the presidency for 8 days?

Manuel Zelaya called it a "maneuver for misleading fools." The Brazilian Chancellor, Celso Amorim, said of Micheletti's proposal "from a legal point of view, he never should have been in the government." But the US State Department took the bait. Robert Wood, a State Department spokesman, said today, "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." Sigh.

Update 3:00 PM PDT: Apparently I'm right. The State Department was fooled by Micheletti's statement into thinking he was abdicating control of the government while he was "absent". Here's the exchange from today's daily press briefing that provides the damning evidence of their ignorance:

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.

The answer Mr. Wood, is that Roberto Micheletti runs the country while he's on this so called "vacation". I refer you to the statements of his Minister of the Presidency, quoted above.

State Department Discovers Human Rights Concerns

2009-11-19T18:58:00.000-08:00

On November 13, State Department spokesperson Ian Kelly was asked for US reaction to the Human Rights conditions in Honduras since the coup. He professed total ignorance of the reports issued by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and even the IACHR. Here's the exchange from the October 13 daily press briefing:

QUESTION: A follow-up on Honduras. What does the U.S. think about the human rights situation there right now? There have been mass arrests, curfews, an emergency decree, and a ban on protests and media closures for three weeks during the presidential campaign. Does that undermine the electoral process, in the view of the U.S.?

MR. KELLY: Regarding the – well, first of all, our real priority here is to see this accord implemented step by step. We’ve only gotten through step one, and we need step two and step three to be implemented.

Regarding the – these reports, I’m actually not aware of these reports of any actions to – you say ban rallies and – no, I’m not just aware of those reports. I think that we would need to have more details about it for us to really comment on it.

Just to remind you, the Minister of Security issued an administrative rule on October 21 that prohibited all public gatherings, be they birthday parties or political rallies, without prior notification and permission of the National Police. Executive decree 124-2009, published on October 5, enjoined the military to monitor radio and television broadcasts and to denounce those of "general abhorrence" to CONATEL so that their broadcast licenses can be revoked.

Today the State Department suddenly expressed Human Rights concerns about the situation in Honduras since the coup, and claimed they've always had these concerns.

It all started with a question about a Human Rights Watch report on conditions in Cuba. Kelly replied that "human rights is at the center of our Cuban policy." He went on to elaborate that "So this is a real priority for the United States, and it will continue to be so." The questioner, seeking clarity asked, "Is that - human rights in the hemisphere?" to which Kelly replied, "Sure." Then the questioner reminded Kelly of his being asked about Human Rights in Honduras last week.

QUESTION: I believe last week, or maybe a little bit before then, you were asked about human rights abuses in Honduras, and reports from the same organization that Dave just mentioned as well as Amnesty International and local human rights groups who have catalogued 4,234 violations since the coup, including 21 murders, or executions as they call them.
There are growing calls from trade union movement here for the U.S. not to recognize the elections unless these things are corrected. Is this something of concern to you guys?

MR. KELLY: It is. It has been and remains a concern. There have been a number of human rights violations since the coup, and we have consistently called on the regime to respect the rights of individual citizens. And we’ve been particularly concerned about some of the moves against the media. And the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa is closely monitoring the situation. It has reported back to us about a number of allegations of arbitrary arrests, disproportionate use of force, and, in particular, restrictions on freedom of expression. So yeah, we are concerned about it.

So somewhere between last week and this week, the State Department discovered to its surprise that Human Rights violations were going on in Honduras, that "it has and remains a concern."

However, in response to the question of what they're doing about it, if it's a concern, the reply was "we're monitoring very very closely." Makes you warm and fuzzy all over.

When asked if the media restrictions and human rights violations have any bearing on recognition of the elections, Kelly at first allowed as how "The lack of freedom of media, of course, is an important – would be an important indicator of this", the "this" being the freedom and transparency of the Honduran elections. He took it all back a few minutes later when he said "we’ll look at restrictions on the media, particularly restrictions of access to candidates in the campaign before the elections themselves."

Sure, one important thing is access by the candidates to media. So its good to hear that the US State Department cares about that.

But the bigger issue is more fundamental: restrictions on what the media can say, with the threat of losing their license hanging over them everyone freedom of speech.