"Between them they've buried the bipartisan system": Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle

In an editorial today in El Tiempo, the Minister of Culture continues his commentary on the spectacle that is the post-coup reality in Honduran politics, endorsing an emerging coalition of progressives:

Pepe and Elvin: The Gravedigger Clowns of the Film

It comes to pass that now, no one took part in the coup, except the no-counts that don't know where to hide. Many businessmen say that they did not, as if their words haven't remained in print and their voices recorded and their handiwork and external lobbying betrayed.

The political leaders of the coup say that neither were they. Carlos Flores says that he was not, that "it was Teté". Pepe goes crazy and Elvin declares 35 days after that "he is not a golpista" and that he condemns "the form" although he condones the basis. A sector of PINU finally repudiates their golpista congress members. But it is obvious that formally speaking the Congress, which is also called "Congre-Zoo", carried out the coup and the congress members responded to their political leaders. That's why the people shout in the street, "golpista congresspeople, trash, out" and when they can they kick them in the street. Without a consensus of the political leaders there would be no coup, since Micheletti, who they are now leaving solo, neither invented the coup nor would have arrived at first base when sent to bat without them.

Paraphrasing Swift I once commented to President Reina that I raised horses because they seemed more noble and rational than politicians. He didn't contradict me and he didn't disagree with me. They should be better than us. And they are the worst breed. I mentioned previously (in "J'accuse") the principal political actors of the coup, and among the witches and alchemists, those generally known, Rafael Callejas and Carlos Flores Facussé, now old politicians, that have once sworn the Constitution that now they are smashing and, exercising their criterion of excellence, the presidency of the Republic that lies here, prostrate, but confronting the repressives with gallantry 45 days later.

Although he competes with Arturo Corrales, Flores is the most cynical. As he says he is writing a memoir I want to assist him. He got in as a congressmember with the blessing of rodismo[*] and intervened many times in the drafting of the constitution that now he broke saying that it was to preserve it. He achieved renown because he wanted to launch himself as a candidate when he was a cabinet minister in the presidency of Rosuco [Roberto Suazo Cordova], on whose orders he also went to the Congress, accompanying Mich [Micheletti] with a proposed law for the Congress to declare itself a constitutional assembly and reform the stony articles, that now he passionately defends.

So many things one could say about Carlos Flores, dangerous and irritable, who many people fear. And that he believes himself loved. Son of a golpista, father of a golpista. Godfather of the usurper and of the judges, attorneys, prosecutor and head of the coup bench.

Carlos has been trying to put this behind him since the day of the coup, when he saw what was coming, saying to anyone who would listen "it wasn't like that man and I told you, but you didn't heed me". Since the week now past he began to publish in his press the adverse opinion of the coup of my teacher Gautama B. Fonseca. But surely you conspired, Ingeniero. We all know what you said to the rest and your role of sponsor. The golpistas that you visited, the media barons, but also the joint command, the "capos" and their deputies, was public.

Your newspaper fabricated the golpista propaganda that prepared the work and set the stage. Your editorials and your little pills always have been golpista even when they wanted to seem unaware in their cynicism. You are a villain, Sir, there is no way to evade the infamy of history. Your father was more cautious. Your own writings condemn you. History will not pardon you, it takes apart propaganda.

The other politicians who conspired will have an identical destiny, although they also try to distance themselves from the coup, Elvin Santos and Pepe Lobo, no one is going to vote for you, Sirs. You are going to have to invent the votes when polls give each one of you one-third favorable in your own parties, versus negative opinions from half. It is now very late to go around repenting. And no one is going to pardon you. You were at the negotiating tables and we all know that you, as candidates of your parties, could have put the brakes on Congress. Pepe wants to pass as ready and lost his second opportunity, Santos lost the only one that he is going to have. Between the two they have buried the hundred-year-old bipartisan system.

No well-born liberal should vote for Elvin Santos, the gravedigger of the greatest party of the isthmus. I have known various bad candidates, but none so fatuous and so destructive as this incontinent Cantinflas, this wet clown.[**] No one should receive him in an honorable house, on pain of being marked. No one should listen to his pleas. No one should speak with him nor turn to see him nor buy a white t-shirt in his malls.

But we don't have to cry for this system that seems that it is going to endure forever, and that we are never going to have parties that will propose ideas, different proposals, real commitments to the people. It could be that there remains, in sight, above the mud with which they cover it, a tight fist, calcined and cracked from the sun, extended saluting those names. The golpistas opened the system so that this new alliance can be established of social organizations and the UD and the varicolored red-and-white progressives, committed to the people, that will win the next elections strikingly and will write glorious pages of our history and a new constituent.

*rodismo: A reference to the conservative movement in the liberal party named after Modesto Rodas Alvarado.


**"payaso mojado": I was tempted to translate this "crying clown", but chose the literal "wet clown" both because of its pairing with "incontinent Cantinflas" and in reference to a story by Daniel Alarcón, "City of Clowns", in which the image refers to a clown literally pelted with water balloons. The image is not uncommon in Spanish as that of a pathetic figure of ridicule.

"Honduras is not Alone": The Resistance Strengthens (an editorial)

An unsigned editorial in Tiempo this week argues that, with the emergence of a solidified and well-organized resistance signified by the marches on San Pedro Sula and Tegucigalpa, Honduras is at a historic moment, when it can transform the resistance into a continuing political force of global significance. Notably, the writer sees the scheduled visits by the OAS and the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights as critical opportunities. This editorial is typical of a reorientation visible in other ways, from demands for restoral of the legal government, toward long term reform and necessary changes:

The Zero Hour

The most important cities in the country, Tegucigalpa-- in the south-center-- and San Pedro Sula-- in the north-- are replete with demonstrators who have turned up from their respective zones of influence to strengthen their opposition to the de facto regime and their demand that constitutional order be restored.

The fact that thousands of citizens have carried out a march of a week long, from distant places to the political and industrial capitals, under a burning sun and innumerable privations, with the goal of defending the State of Law, is something never seen in Central America, and possibly, not even in Latin America.

It is an astonishing collective attitude that the Hondurans have not yet begun to analyze in depth, but are guessing its repercussions on the dynamic of political and social change that the majority of the people demand and that inevitably will have to follow its natural course to be realized, in conformity with the obstacles or assistance that is presented along the way.

Until now, the national resistance movement against the coup d'Etat of June 28-- which is already a symbolic date in history-- has not lost heart. On the contrary: it is seen to strengthen with the "institutional" repression that has applied a large range of means, from the media to physical and psychological brutality, that in total conform to a system of dictatorial terrorism.

This strengthening of the peaceful resistance is not casual, but rather proper to the evolution of human nature, as we can validate throughout history, from the dawn of Christianity, through the Jewish Holocaust in the second World War, to the passive resistance of Ghandi in his quest for independence for India, and that of Nelson Mandela against apartheid in South Africa.

From this perspective, although it may appear exaggerated for the smallness of our country in the world concert of nations, we Hondurans should begin to reason consciously about the opportunities that this popular awakening offers to advance toward the necessary political, economic, social and cultural reforms that are necessary in Honduras, in place of attempting to intercept them and sharpen the conflict.

To do this is the job of the politicians who, effectively, know and comprehend the national reality and would be disposed to act in consequence. As happens almost always in these cases, the inertia against change also levels the obsolete and refractory leadership and affirms or creates new leaders. All this forms part of the social and political dynamic, that to a certain extent achieves its own autonomy.

In this conjuncture, Honduras is not alone. It has the rest of the world on its side, and we Hondurans should not lose this extraordinary circumstance, unique, independent of the side of the controversy on which we are found: golpistas, constitutionalists, or neutral. In historic terms, we have arrived at the Zero Hour.

In the coming days-- days of resistance-- two important events are foreseen, definitive in this situation and linked together: the visit by the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights, and then, the presence of a mission of foreign ministers of the OAS and of Secretary José Insulza to promote the approval by the de facto regime of the San Jose Accord.

This is the right moment-- and, surely, the last opportunity-- to enable constitutional order and national reconciliation without more traumatic consequences. It is the correct moment for a patriotic decision.

Radio Progreso reporter missing in demonstration in Choloma

By email, correspondents in Honduras report that in a violent police action against a takeover of the highway in Choloma, north of San Pedro Sula, a reporter for the Jesuit-sponsored Radio Progreso, one of the few free media in the country, was communicating from the demonstration when his cell phonewas cut off.

On the air Radio Progreso is broadcasting news from this demonstration, disrupted, like others, with tear gas and truncheons.

A lawyer for the defense of demonstrators reports being beaten when he approached police to identify himself as representing those captured.

The missing reporter is Gustavo Cardoza, whose last report by phone was that the police had drawn a gun and were pursuing him.

Update: Tiempo is now reporting that there has been a violent dislodging of the protesters in Choloma by 200 police using teargas and night sticks, and that one of their reporters is being held by the police. Tiempo reports that in addition to their photographer, Julio Umaña, a reporter from Tela, Edwin Castillo, and Gustavo Cardoza, from Radio Progreso are being held. All three were beaten and are being held, despite having identified themselves as reporters.

Tiempo reports that their reporter was released about 1:30 pm local time, but that all of the shots on his camera had been deliberately erased by the police.

The Armed Forces statement: a translation and commentary

Saturday I decided to hold off on adding a second post based on messages I was receiving that suggested some movement of the military.

Events, of course, overtook me, and the NY Times reported on Armed Forces Communique No. 7, a curious document posted on the website of the Honduran armed forces command. The NY Times article reported that unnamed "aides" to equally unnamed US Congress members assisted officers of the Honduran army in formulating the statement. The specific mention of coronels-- the younger generation, waiting to become the next set of high command-- suggests that Romeo Vasquez Velasquez' little adventure, and its negative effects on the reputation the army had previously earned for its abstention from political interference, was troubling to elements within the command structure.

The whole communiqué is worth a look:

ARMED FORCES OF HONDURAS
SECRETARY OF STATE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
COMMUNIQUE NO. 7

The Secretary of State Office of National Defense, in view of the latest suspected developments, communicates the following to national and international public opinion:



1. That the Armed Forces are respectful of the Constitution and of the Laws, whereby we reaffirm our subordination to civil authority in keeping with the principles of legality and due obedience.


2. That as an institution we back a solution to the problematic situation that spans our country, through a process of negotiation on the framework of the San Jose Accords. Likewise, we reiterate our unrestricted support for the results of the same, in conformity with our Constitution and other laws.


3. The Armed Forces as a national institution fulfills and will continue to fulfill the missions that the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic have indicated for it.


Comayaguela, M.D.C. 24 of July, 2009

Ostensibly, the audience addressed is "national and international public opinion"-- a telling phrase. The triggering event is expressed extremely vaguely-- in light of the "latest suspected developments". What might these be? there are two possible readings: one, the San Jose mediation itself, although here, the use of "suscitado" (suspected) makes little sense. Instead, this word and the vagueness of the phrase suggest the reference is to Zelaya's announced intention to return to Honduras: the Armed Forces want their position out in front of any military confrontation they will end up forced into.

For me, this is the rationale for the first and third points in the communiqué: the Armed Forces wants everyone to know that whatever they end up doing, it will be by the book. Which, they continue to protest, was what they thought they were doing June 28, and they resent being portrayed as authors of a military coup. From this perspective, it is worth pairing the Armed Forces statement with a brief news item reporting on a press conference by the high command of the National Police. (Extraordinary situation when both commands are engaging in aggressive press contacts, including the Radio Globo interview with Vasquez Velasquez discussed by other commentators.)

The short report in the Honduran paper, El Tiempo, cites the police chiefs as vowing to protect the physical safety of Zelaya and his escort:

Police guarantee physical safety of President Zelaya

In case the overthrown president, Manuel Zelaya, enters Honduras, the police authorities will guarantee the physical safety of himself and his escorts, in accord with a strategic plan being put into place.

The preceeding was made known yesterday in a press conference carried out at the Casa Presidencial by the police high command, made up of the general director of this corps, General Salomón Escoto Salinas; the national director of the Preventative Police, General Jose Luis Muñoz Licona; and the national director of Special Investigation Services, René Maradiaga Panchamé, among others.

In the same way, they advised that if the entry of Zelaya, who arrived yesterday from Nicaragua to the border zone with Honduras, were to be accomplished, they would carry out the judicial orders issued by the respective legal tribunal.

It would be good if it were certain that President Zelaya would not be in physical danger. But physical danger is not the only issue here. The police end by promising vaguely to "carry out the judicial orders issued by the respective legal tribunal". That, presumably, could mean the arrest warrant dated June 26, 2009, which authorized the Armed Forces to raid Zelaya's residence. That order was not addressed to the National Police-- constitutionally, the group who should have carried out any such arrest-- specifically because the requesting government minister did not trust the police. This recalls reports of police at the border with Nicaragua disclaiming receiving any arrest order and laughing at the idea of arresting President Zelaya. It is not entirely clear at this point what other warrant the Police, or the Armed Forces, might have in hand to implement.

So the Armed Forces statement does not necessarily mean that the critical breakthrough has happened, but together with other signs, is part of an emerging picture of reluctance by the military (police and Armed Forces) to be the fall guys for civilian incompetence. I read the Armed Forces statement as a warning to the civil government, to get back to the mediation and stop being so intransigent. It is in effect-- and as its inclusion in a numbered sequence of communiqués suggests-- the Armed Forces' expression of continued discomfort with the position in which they have been put by a civilian government that was so misguided as to expect the world community to accept a coup d'etat.

(On the question of why the coup plotters were so mistaken, the Honduran scholars I talked with in Costa Rica this week suggest that the coup group lacked anyone with real knowledge of contemporary world politics. In the absence of such a knowledgable person, they argued that Enrique Ortez Colindres-- notorious now for his racist remarks about President Obama-- was able to project an aura of confidence and knowledge, primarily through his facility as a speaker, albeit one whose ideas are both retrograde and uninformed.)

It is worth noting that Communique No. 7 is for the most part a revision of Communique No. 6, dated July 24. Item 1 is identical; Item 3 differs only by citing the specific sections of the Constitution that cover the mission of the Armed Forces.

In this communique, the second point is much less pointed:

2. That as a subordinated institution we support in a unanimous and unrestricted form the Government of the Republic, in the decisions and actions that it may take in the framework of its attributes for the peaceful solution of the problematic situation that spans our country, on the basis of the negotiations that are being realized on an international level by means of dialogue; in which sense we maintain ourselves firm in the defense of the rule of the Constitution of the Republic, our laws, and of the national sovereignty in all its manifestations.

Unlike the Communique that followed, this preceding document had two more numbered points: Number 4 asking the international and national communities to maintain their confidence in the Armed Forces; and Number 5 saying

We emphasize our commitment to respect and to have respected our constitution and the laws, more than any private interest or that of groups that intend to destabilize our country.

In other words, on Friday the Armed Forces was hinting that while supporting the ongoing dialogue, they were not going to feel obliged to support some private interest or group that might "destabilize" the country; by Saturday, they were endorsing the San Jose Accord specifically.

This was a major change in emphasis from Communique 5 of July 22, which appeared to disclaim any responsibility if unnamed "persons" were injured in the process of fomenting unrest.

In fact, the series of Communiques that started on June 30 with the Armed Forces' defense of their raid on the house of President Zelaya, clearly shows that the military are unhappy with the positions they have found themselves in as a result of their implication in the coup. The first three Communiques essentially justified actions taken by the army.

The tenor of these press releases changed radically with Communique 4, dated July 14, issued primarily to reject rumors of divisions within the Armed Forces. Item 1 read

That the Armed Forces maintain themselves solidly united and that we, its members, are immersed in the task of contributing to the Government of the Republic, to maintain internal order in the country without disregarding the other missions established by the Constitution of the Republic.

Item 4 reiterated

That the persons engaged in creating divisions in the Armed Forces are not going to achieve it because we are a hierarchicized institution, solidly united, and its members formed under the trilogy of honor, loyalty, and sacrifice.

Over the course of a little more than a week that followed, the Armed Forces' communiques have become increasingly pointed. From defending the regime they installed, they have moved to calling more and more openly for that regime to agree to a settlement like that proposed by Oscar Arias.

What will the next communique bring?

"Indignation Must be Cultivated": Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle

Another blog today published an English translation of the latest editorial by Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle, Honduran historian and legitimate Minister of Culture. This saved me completing the task of translating the original myself.

Pastor Fasquelle argues that President Zelaya's attempts to directly address the "structural contradictions" of Honduran society, that he traces back fifty years

revealed the fault lines between the segments of the population who have benefited and been alienated by such a process (the various shades of the bourgeoisie) and, on the other hand, the increasingly frustrated marginalized majority, along with socially and ethically committed professionals and organized workers who are able to envision a more just order of things.

This is a critical point: support for the moves toward social justice comes not just from the poor, or the less-educated; it is also the hallmark of a wide group of well educated professionals, who are now suffering repression.

Pastor Fasquelle reflects on the danger that the real struggle, being papered over in Honduran media and misrepresented in the US in particular, will lose momentum, noting that it must continue:

The impotence, the frustration and the confusion must be recognized, but not for the sake of giving up. Indignation must be cultivated and above all, organized, in order to be turned into an effective instrument of the struggle. The demonstrations in the street remain urgent and will continue for many more days, although they need to be better organized. And the banner of the struggle remains; the immediate restitution of the legitimate government. Congress can give amnesty to whomever it likes. Mel must return however, from wherever, to do whatever.

On a day when the news about the Honduran crisis features a firm reiteration by Oscar Arias that only the restitution of President Zelaya will be acceptable, even in the face of new and equally unacceptable proposals from the authoritarian regime, Pastor Fasquelle's final point is of equal significance:

There’s nothing personal about it, but Mel personifies this longing. No-one but he can restore the conditions under which we can return to being a civilized country, debating our differences without the prefabricated foolishness of ideology and fundamentalism; turning to the polls rather than weapons, to resolve contradictions.

Translation: Machetera, with editing by Manuel Talens

Machetera and Manuel Talens are members of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, translator and editor are cited.

What some supporters of constitutional change think is at stake

English language news coverage has been remarkably uniform in narrowing the issue of constitutional reform down to that of term limits, despite the lack of any statement by Zelaya that would support the claim that his whole intent was to stay in power.

This in large part echoes the Honduran national press.

An interesting statement posted by Honduran indigenous groups, dated July 1, calls for the restoration of the Zelaya government. It includes as its last clause

Jamás claudicaremos a nuestra lucha histórica por una reforma a la constitución política de nuestra patria, en donde se reconozca el Estado multicultural y multilingüe en Honduras; los derechos particulares de nuestros pueblos; por una democracia participativa e incluyente; al consentimiento libre, previo e informado; al reconocimiento y defensa legitima de nuestros territorios y recursos naturales; a la libre determinación de nuestros pueblos; entre otros, así, como lo establecen diversos Tratados, Convenios y Declaraciones internacionales, principalmente el Convenio 169 de la OIT y la Declaración de la Naciones Unidas sobre Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas.

We will never back down in our historic struggle for a reform of the political constitution of our country, in which will be recognized a multicultural and multilingual State in Honduras; the specific rights of our peoples; a participatory and inclusive democracy; free, prior and informed consent; the recognition and legitimate defense of our territories and natural resources; the free determination of our peoples; among others, as are established in numerous treaties, agreements, and international declarations, principally ILO Convention 169 and the Declaration of the UN concerning the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The points listed echo several made by Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle in his editorial in El Tiempo discussing what proponents of constitutional reform saw as important potential outcomes.

ILO 169 of the UN concerns "indigenous and tribal peoples" and their rights. One of the more unexpected things happening in Honduras over the past 20 years has been the public visibility of such minority groups, and the increasing voice they have had in political action. ILO 169 challenges signatory countries, including Honduras, which ratified it March 28, 1995. ILO 169 calls for specific treatment to be accorded to indigenous peoples in recognition of their status as original inhabitants and as minorities whose cultures are often most threatened by nationalism and development. As Pastor Fasquelle pointed out, the present Honduran constitution does not conform with this and other similar international agreements.

There are undoubtedly other substantive parts of the constitutional reform story going unreported. This is simply one example of why those who supported reform did so.

Cracks in the illusion of unity...

There are increasing signs that the coalition supporting the coup-ists (try pronouncing it "coo-ists"; there is no good English equivalent for golpistas) is not holding fast. Today's El Tiempo carried a story by Roberto Quesada in which he reported his conversation with the candidate for President of the opposition Nationalist Party, Pepe Lobo. (As Tiempo currently is unavailable, I provide here a link to an intermediary site that will link to the story when it comes back up. My partner read it when it was originally posted, and by the time I went to check, the site was down. So consider the rest of this paragraph second-hand reporting.) In the phone conversation reported by Quesada, Lobo apparently repudiated the coup as an illegal action.

Since it is impossible to pursue that thread further, I turn now to a statement I received from Honduras on Saturday, July 4. The Roman Catholic church in Honduras has been criticized for its support of the anti-Zelaya actions. The Archbishop of Honduras, Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga issued a public call to Zelaya not to continue to seek reinstatement. The Cardinal led the Honduras Conference of Bishops in endorsing what is actually an incoherent statement that is remarkable for its citation of the problematic legal arguments made in favor of the coup, while also noting without more comment that the Honduran Constitution explicitly bars the forced deportation of any Honduran citizen, which would imply disapproval of the legality of the coup.

Not all the Bishops appear to share the Cardinal's approval of the de facto government and its arguments for legality. In a separate statement, on July 2 the Bishop of Santa Rosa de Copan, Luis Alfonso Santos, wrote a denunciation of the leaders on both sides, labeling the actions a coup d'etat, calling for resignation of those responsible, and for the restoration of civil rights. This statement is now available online, and thus I provide here a translation in full:

(1) The Diocese of Santa Rosa de Copán, faithful to the mission to preach the Kingdom of God and denounce situations of injustice, asks all Hondurans to make a great effort to re-establish Social Peace.

(2) The vast majority of Hondurans do not want confrontations in the street, nor civil war, nor wars with other countries.

Therefore, we call for the groups that have altered public order, that they put all of their goodwill to resolve by way of dialogue the present crisis produced by the social inequity in which we always have lived.

As the party responsible for the conduct of the Catholic Church in the west of Honduras, we repudiate the substance, the form, and the style with which a new head of the Executive Power has been imposed on the People. Had José Manuel Zelaya Rosales committed something illicit, he has the right to a fair trial, the same as any Honduran citizen and in general every human being. Article 84 of the present Constitution says literally "No one can be arrested without a written order by a competent authority".

The coup d'etat of June 28 has had as consequence: demands by the citizenry in the streets and highways, a climate of insecurity and fear in families due to the limitation of constitutional guarantees, among them the right of freedom to circulate, freedom of association and demonstration, inviolability of the residence, the right to private property, liberty of the press and of the diffusion of ideas and opinions, personal liberty, including the right not to be detained in a police station for more than 24 hours, and judicial detention of no more than six days, which has changed to indefinite detentions. All the preceding is contained in the Decree about the "State of Exception" that yesterday the 1 of July was being published in the National Congress. With this a massive violation of Human Rights is nearing. In this respect we repudiate in particular:

• the violent way in which Radio Progreso and other media were silenced
• the illegal detentions
• the exile of some compatriots
• the blows and bloody wounds

As the Catholic Church that travels extensively in the west of Honduras, we want to remind the 124 congress members from the Liberal and National parties, responsible for the coup d'etat and actually in power, that they are not owners of Honduras, and that no one can be above the Law. The present congress members should remember that they receive their salary from the people they are oppressing. If plebiscites and referenda were institutionalized, as the Bishops suggested in the Episcopal Conference of Honduras in our communique of last June 19, we would not be in this position. They preferred to be faithful to the economically strong groups, both national and transnational. We hope that in the next elections, the People give them a vote of punishment.

We would like to remind everyone and in particular the Armed Forces and the National Police of the Fifth Commandment of the Law of God which says "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20, 13). This commandment prohibits as well the blows, wounds, and all vexation of the human being who was created in the image and semblance of God and who is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

We lament every act in violation of the Constitution of the Republic, which has been being done up till now by those that have governed us. We reject every menace and insertion of foreign countries in the internal affairs of Honduras.

We Hondurans desire PEACE.

No more lies. We want them to tell the truth. No more injustices. We want them to respect the integrity of the person and Human Rights. We want to live in freedom: we do not want pressure.

The call of Jesus is to live in love, therefore no more hatred, vengeance, violence, or rancor.

Jesus said in the Gospel of Mark (4, 40) "Why are you so afraid? How can you not have faith?" Inspired by these words of Jesus, we invite all to trust in the merciful and saving presence of our Lord, who accompanies us in our travels.

We will intensify our prayers for Honduras.

We ask the Lord, to allow us to achieve Peace and goodness and to our Patron Saint Rose of Lima, to intercede for us.

Santa Rosa de Copán, 1 of July, 2009

Voices against the coup from within the Congress

There is a rising number of statements from members of the Honduran Congress disavowing the military coup of Sunday June 28, and the appointment by voice vote of the head of Congress as de facto president. Thirteen members of the dominant Liberal Party have recently disclaimed their assent, repudiating the coup d'etat. They join the six Congress members from the UD party that did not attend the Sunday June 28 session. Thus at least 19 of the 128 members of congress have now clearly indicated that, despite the claims of unanimity, they did not support these actions. El Tiempo in Honduras, which has been consistent in reporting all aspects of the political crisis, published the story when there were only seven Liberal congresspeople who had agreed to be named publicly in support. Those named in this story were Erick Mauricio Rodríguez (Lempira), Elías Arnaldo Guevara (Lempira), Javier Polío Hall (Yoro), María Margarita Zelaya (Cortés) Elvia Argentina Valle (Copán), Carolina Echeverría (Gracias a Dios) and José Rodrigo Tróchez (Santa Bárbara). Follow-up stories add the names of José Azcona Bocock (son of a former president); Norma Ivette Calderón; Gladys Del Cid; Javier Pulido; and Eliazar Juárez.

Among the most interesting of these expressions, is a letter signed by Angel Edmundo Orellana Mercado, the former Secretary of Defense under President Zelaya, whose resignation on June 24 was one of the actions that marked the beginning of the coup. Dated June 29 and addressed to the person who replaced Micheletti as head of Congress, it is worth translating here in full. But for those who want to know the bottom line: speaking as a university professor and lawyer, dissenting from some of Zelaya's actions, he repudiates the actions of Congress, and expresses his intention to refrain from attending congress (to which he was reappointed after stepping down from his Cabinet post) until they are reversed and President Zelaya is reinstated. The details he rehearses in his letter are worth taking time to read, and I offer them here in translation. I omit only the salutations at the beginning and end of the letter. I highlight in bold face some key opinions of this very well qualified commentator:

As you know, on the 24th of this month I presented my resignation to the President of the Republic, Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, owing to very special circumstances, generated by the decision to carry out a poll that was prohibited by a tribunal of the Judicial branch. The poll was not declared illegal; nonetheless, it was ordered judicially that it not be carried out, in virtue of the fact that in an incidental ruling the suspension of the effects of the law was declared and, in a clarification-- that, unusually, resulted in a new ruling-- all the future acts of the Executive Power to that end were included.

Judicial communications were delivered, unusually, to the institutions that could be involved, but not to all of these. Among the first, was included the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs, who were not part of the case, and could not be, since this is only a process subject to the Attorney General, and in any case, the State, by means of the Executive Power, as a whole, as defendant, in keeping with article 17 of the Law of Jurisdiction of Administrative Disputes.

Despite the fact that the judicial decision involved a legal absurdity, derived from a total lack of knowledge of elementary concepts of procedural law, my recommendation was to carry out the poll only if the revocation or nullification of the incidental ruling was achieved. This was not achieved nor was it decided to suspend the poll, so that decisions were made that obligated me to submit my irrevocable resignation, which President Zelaya accepted and this was released the same day.

Last Sunday, in the National Congress decisions were taken that in my judgement were glaringly contrary to the Constitution of the Republic. First, a supposed resignation of the President of the Republic was read, when it is well known that he was taken violently from his house and sent against his will to the brother Republic of Costa Rica; second, a legislative decree was adopted by means of which the President of the Republic was dismissed, alleging supposed criminal deeds, which if they exist should be specified and judged by competent tribunals, not by the Legislative Power, in respect to a basic principle of the division of powers, that our Constitutions always have recognized; and, finally, that the dismissal of the President was adopted without the Constitution recognizing any power for the National Congress to take a decision of this nature.

Without judging acts after this resolution, my position in the face of the acts described is that they violate the Constitution of the Republic and they perpetrated a Coup d'Etat, despite wishing to give the impression that they dealt with something else; which has still not been clarified. It is an opinion, true, but it is my opinion and I have the right to defend it and make it known to you and, by means of you, to the entire National Congress, and the people that elected me, towards whom I have fundamental duties.

I resigned the post of Secretary of Defense because there was an intention to ignore a legal order, and, with that, place the State of Law itself in a precarious state. On that occasion it was merely a threat. But the acts by the Legislature described, constitute the execution of a violation of the Constitution of the Republic that involves an undeniable Coup d'Etat. That is to say, we are in the presence of a fait accompli. In the face of this incontrovertible reality, in my status as Lawyer, as Professor of the Faculty of Law of the National University, and as a citizen, my position must be consistent.

For all the above, I have decided not to attend the sessions of the National Congress until this is rectified and the restoration of the post of President of the Republic to Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, who was legitimately elected by the people and invested by the same by the competent authority, is permitted. To this end, I invoke the Magna Carta to rely on the right that as a congressperson is recognized in No. 6 of constitutional article 205, when it recognizes among the legitimate reasons not to attend sessions and incorporate alternates, in addition to absolulte or temporary default or legitimate impediment, the following: :when they (the congressmembers) decline to attend; recalling, finally, that the Constitution of the Republic in its article 275 stipulates that the same will not lose the validity in any case, including the one that I have related.

"The soap opera of the coup...

that wasn't one, but rather a peaceful succession (to those who carried out the coup and their puppets)

[Under this title, an editorial signed by the historian and author, Minister of Culture Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle, appeared in Tiempo; partly translated here; subsequently, Tiempo published an interview with the Minister concerning the coup and its aftermath]

I don't know where you were, reader...at five in the morning last Sunday, when a squad of soldiers assaulted the home of Manuel Zelaya, with high-power rifles and assault weapons. I was preparing to supervise the poll in the Central Park in San Pedro and around La Lima... the people were angry, so we marched together to the Central Park to a meeting in which we explained the situation and we listened live, over a sound system, to the statement of the President, already in Costa Rica.

...All the parties, with the exception of the UD, have been irreversibly damaged by their evident complicity in the coup. Only 12 Liberal Party congressmembers, the most lucid, best educated, and most honest, have resisted in silence. None of the National Party members made a statement, in rebellion! Now we are all UD Party, I certainly have converted although I do not share much of their ideological position. ...we are going to elect a President from the new alliance. History says that it is possible that the damage done will never be repaired. ...

I would also like to know how they are going to get out of the mess now. They have invoked "Democracy" and "State of Law", "the Constitution" that we supposedly were schemed to violate, imputing to us the perverse intention to "subvert order", to destroy institutions and impose a dictatorial regime...They keep repeating it... They accuse us of violating public freedoms and the right of free expression without any evidence, and of being antidemocratic. But they come and carry out a coup, quash the people seated peacefully in the street, noting the ID of whoever, in voluntary form, tried to participate in a poll. They remove from the air the few media that oppose the coup government, on radio and TV, ordering the cable companies to suppress the transmission of Telesur, and they detain its correspondents, as well as cutting transmission of the BBC and CNN, because supposedly they "distort the facts", circulating images of the repression and, in the concrete case of Channel 11, they order that it transmit only sports and theater. Two days later they induce the media to cover their manipulated marches and they silence and hide the spontaneous marches of our people (who no one now can accuse of being paid) and the images of repression, and they censor what is published in the newspapers. Is this the liberty of expression that Flores Facusse and Micheletti Bain defend?

They have been claiming a legality that, in theory, we violated, contradicting a judgment by the judge who condemned the consultation of the people and "any later act that would seek the same end". But now they violate the residence of no less than the highest Magistrate, they handle him and they kidnap him to send him on a plane out of the country, by force. They invent a "resignation" that once disproved, they ignore, and proceed to fire the President post-facto, without a corresponding trial, no less listen to his defense, invoking the commission of a crime for which they never have formulated charges. (After all they could have asked us for an explanation and identified responsibilities.) They arrested and deported the ministers in hiding that they could surprise. They prescribed lead bullets, after the gas, for the demonstrators who protested. And now they declare a curfew and... a State of Siege so that, as I write this, they are discussing in the Congress the suspension of individual basic guarantees, to scare the marches and justify the illegal detention of their directors. To this illegality they add the firing of mayors who supported the poll, who no one can fire without an established procedure. This is the legality that the heroic Armed Forces of Honduras defend, Romeo?

They have been claiming that they want tranquility, that they would like to live in peace, a thing that, according to them, we hampered. And they have created the conditions, now, as Maduro says "for the first time" in Honduras, for a war of the classes, bloody, without a visible end. And this is the peace and democracy in whose defense soldiers have to shoot against the people in the street?

No government supports them...and all the international organizations (conscious of the consequences of tolerating a de facto, spurious, government aided by violence) have condemned them after rejecting the fairy-tale that "there was no coup". And they have decreed-- all of them-- sanctions that follow a crescendo that could cause collateral damage... But the authors of the coup declare that they are "misunderstood" and that "it doesn't matter what the world says". Because Honduras is "a cohesive nation" in respect to the government of Micheletti... but there are demonstrations in all the parks and seizures of the highways that could paralize the country and the courts and the Congress and Attorney General and the peanut-gallery newspapers are militarized. I would like to know, how are they going to sustain this circus? Because in addition every affront is documented and in dozens of blogs the information and images are uploaded to the internet, which circles the globe thousands of times. Your swinishness is seen everywhere! While you show off transparently in your invisible clothes in front of the world you should know that the blessings of Argeñal and of Romero will not buy you indulgence in hell. And the interest on the crime will not reach what is needed to buy oil, even though the oil companies help you, as they promised.

"Fear the Dark": Suspension of Constitutional Rights

Thursday the Honduran daily paper, El Tiempo, published an unsigned editorial criticizing the de facto government's suspension of constitutional rights; as it notes, the latest actions contradict the claim by the de facto government that the change of regime has been accepted and public objections are limited:

State of siege

A state of siege has been decreed, for "grave disturbance of the peace", with which the regime recognizes that Honduras lives in a situation of abnormality, without doubt caused by the rupture of the constitutional order with the coup d'etat of the 28th of June, 2009.

Constitutional norms establish, in these conditions, that the suspension of the exercise of individual rights should be specifically noted, the decision should be justified, the territory affected and the time the restriction will last should be indicated.

Executive Decree No. 011-2009 enacted by the regime suspends the following individual rights: personal liberty; detention without communication for a maximum of 24 hours and judicial detention for inquiries without exceeding six days; the freedom of association and of assembly; and the right to circulate freely, leave, enter, and stay in the national territory.

This peculiar state of siege includes the entire country, although apparently, only is in force at night, from 9 PM to 6 AM. This arrangement, with its characteristics, cannot be modified as long as the restriction lasts, according to the law. Fear the dark.

In our country a state of siege has almost always been decreed when coups d'etat happen, it is worth saying, for political reasons. For natural calamities, in recent history this "legal dictatorship", as some call it, has only been used due to the catastrophe of Hurricane Mitch.

Governments, in general, do all possible to avoid the application of states of exception, since that signifies the existence in a country of a public disorder that the duly constituted-- or imposed-- authority does not feel capable of controlling with common legal means, and therefore, tends to have recourse to the denial of constitutional guarantees.

This is, as can be appreciated, what is happening due to the demonstrations of popular rejection of the breach of constitutional order, that are the object of hard repression and whose escalation seems uncontainable, even when this does not reach public knowledge in its true dimension due to the manipulations of the system of social communication of the country.

It is worth pointing out that in the decree of a state of siege freedom of expression has not been included, no doubt because it is considered unnecessary to do so. The freedom of expression is being violated in diverse forms, using methods of boycott, of persecution and intimidation, which is the object of strong denunciation with international organizations for the defense of human rights, although not in what corresponds to the national commission on human rights, for reasons known to everyone and that aren't worth the trouble to explain.

What Advocates Hoped to Change in the Honduran Constitution

There has been abundant repetition of the claim that the poll scheduled for last Sunday was intended by its advocates to allow the current President, Manual Zelaya, to remain in office after his term ends in January, 2010.

A correspondent in Honduras drew my attention to an editorial, published Saturday in El Tiempo de Honduras, in which the Minister of Culture, Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle, a historian and former university professor, gave his concrete views on what needs to change in the 1982 Honduran Constitution. Minister Pastor, whose current location and status is unknown, cannot be taken to represent the views of his entire government; but at the very least, he presents a different narrative from the one spread by those who illegally exiled the legally elected President of the country, and taken up by much English-language media for whom the story of a Latin American president who wants to hold power forever is a convenient, pre-existing storyline.

Ironically, as I go to post this, those who removed President Zelaya from the country to prevent any question about initiating constitutional reform, are suspending core rights guaranteed by the Honduran Constitution itself, including the right of assembly, the right to travel, the right to demonstrate, the right to a speedy hearing, and the requirement for court orders for searches.

Here, then, is my translation of the editorial, which cannot capture the fluidity of Minister Pastor's writing:

Why and for what do we need a new constitution?

There isn't a total consensus among us about "for what" we need a new constitution, nor about "what it needs to have", nor do we have a reason for why we have to have it because-- precisely-- this consensus is what has to crystallize, in the breast of a genuinely representative constituent assembly, after a debate, and which has to support a new social contract.

I disagree on various points, to give an example, with my leader, and it will be my job to defend my dissidence, some other time. For the rest, the problem has a juridical dimension and depth that I do not have the professional knowledge to exhaust, so I will speak above all of the administrative and political problem.

Perhaps I have to note why theoretically we did not need the ballot question of the "cuarta urna" and a constitutional assembly up till now. There have been many supposed reforms that could have conceivably been arranged among the parties, as a hundred other amendments have been arranged, the most important of which, nonetheless, ended in the trash because they were declared "unconstitutional" in the Supreme Court of Injustice, paradoxically at the request of the same reformer, as in the case of the prohibition on the President of Congress running for the Presidency of the Republic. Therefore, well-qualified jurists have declared that almost all the Constitution is petrified, is politically shielded against change. From time to time we get reforms that the politicians immediately find a way to circumvent. And it is clear that there has been bad faith, that they have given us "atole with a finger" [strung us along], that they concede reforms to us and then they ameliorate them, and are already thinking about how to take them apart from the same moment they promulgate them.

Personally, I have declared myself against re-election; I do not believe that a democratic society needs it. Electoral position would be more representative when everyone has the most opportunity, than when those who occupy and have benefitted from exposure are privileged. Better to propose to remove from congressional representatives the right to successive re-election. (It is those who carry out public policy, and civil service administrators, who require expertise and continuity in their jobs, and not those who deliberate-- advised-- about policy, and here we have the reverse, we dismiss the specialists to accommodate the clients of the political class of the moment.) I also believe it is inexpedient to raise the restrictions that weigh on sectors such as the military in active service and those in religious orders, in order to allow them to participate in elections and political life, because those guilds have their own missions and are obligated to a type of obedience that takes away from subordinates the independence of the full citizen.

But, although its beneficiaries do not wish to see it, the present political system, petrified in the Constitution, is broken, more than the treasury. It is a system of corruption and privileges frozen by constitutionalization of corporatist pretensions and by groups of incontravertible economic power. It does not assure the fulfillment of the duties of citizenship and the payment of its obligations (no one in any country in the world has to be exempt from paying income tax) nor does it guarantee the enjoyment of minimum rights. And, as a consequence, all the institutionality of the State suffers from weakness: it cannot function adequately, it does not have what it needs to do so. And the lack of capacity to respond generates a failure of institutional credibility. And this situation generates ungovernability and requires changes that-- daily-- the sovereign people, who the powers of State owe obedience, demand in the street; since all democratic authority derives from their will. To change the system supposes a constitutional assembly; there is no other way.

There are other rights that this society of ours needs to restrict. Public servants, and specifically, the military and police, should not invoke constitutional rights to preserve themselves unpunished and in their posts despite well-founded suspicions wth respect to their failures or involvement in activities at odds with the mission of their role. Their strategic position requires that they renounce the right to protection, as public figures should, for their part, renounce the right to privacy in the face of liberty of expression.

Instead of this, it is necessary to open up, amplify, and make operative other rights, specifically that of direct consultation, that which the reactionary right is precisely committed to frustrate today, intimidating the people with threats and fantasies. But there are other universal rights today denied, including individual ones. It is unacceptable that the Public Prosecutor can monopolize the accusatorial function in society. This provokes defenselessness of the citizenry when they cannot obtain the consent of the public prosecutor of the moment to charge those who abuse us. We should all have the right to bring charges when the Prosecution does not act and without need of an intermediary, as long as our charge conforms to the law. Likewise, we have to broaden the rights of ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities to bring ourselves into line with our international commitments in these areas. Because even today the rights indigenous people derive from their condition are not recognized, and despite theoretical secularism, fundamentalism wishes to impose its dogma as law.

The traditional parties have arranged to cooperate to promulgate, at full gallop, rules for popular consultation instituted five years ago and blocked for lack of these rules and of the political will to implement them. We congratulate them for that because this will facilitate the installation of the "Cuarta Urna" [ballot measure], although it does not resolve all the formal problems. And we ask if they would ever have made the rules for this law that was dead without the pressure of this exercise in consultation. We shall have to see that these instruments will not be left tied up and controlled.

If we dream of a democratic country, we also have to assure ourselves that the people we elect to public positions respond to the public interest when they take up their charges. Not to the private interest of their friends and family, nor to that of their business clients, but to the interest of the citizenry in general. The present Constitution does not establish operative mechanisms to render an accounting nor to revoke mandates. The referendum should be approved as well so that the new constitution is submitted for the approval of the citizenry. These are a few things. That not all of us can understand. But fundamental. This country cannot govern itself in peace as long as we do not refound ourselves with a social contract in which there is respect for the rights of everyone.