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.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Amnesty Tomorrow?
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.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The State Department Muddies The Waters
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.
"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.
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Honduran Resistance Will Continue
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:
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.
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
(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.)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.
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.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
BCIE To Resume Loans To Honduras
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"
As reported in an article datelined San Pedro Sula in Tiempo:
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
IACHR: De Facto Government Commited Serious Violations of Human Rights
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)