Why?

b/c the u.s. is stalling to buy time, which permits the coup to hold out longer & get better odds of surviving. the rest of the int'l community has already came out strongly against this. the u.s. is thus the obstacle to real pressure on the situation. don't kid yourself that there was no u.s. foreknowledge & involvement in this. or that politicians speak honestly.

Posted by: b real | Jun 30 2009 16:29 utc | 101

Spot on, b real
Obama spoke AFTER the OAS declaration, and the public statements have been fuzzy and certainly not unequivacable ... no mention of 're-instatement' ... buying time and gauging reaction ...

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 30 2009 16:35 utc | 102

I guess I'm just having trouble reconciling the version you're suggesting with the facts we have in front of us. I'd like to backtrack and say I don't find it improbable that your vision of the events is in any way unlikely, but that it doesn't seem to me the only reasonable interpretation.

What I see as facts that are *most* pertinent.

The General is an School of the Americas graduate. This must be a factor.

The Americans arrived the day before. I'm not ready to fully accept that this is a smoking gun that the Americans engineered it, but it makes it clear the Americans knew the coup was going to take place.

The Americans initially responded... timidly (shall we say?) to the coup.

I believe these are all supportive of the theory that the Americans supported the coup.

But then, why the backtracking? Yesterday:

"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there." -Obama

From the WSJ, certainly not a media outlet supportive of either Obama or Zelaya:

The Obama administration and members of the Organization of American States had worked for weeks to try to avert any moves to overthrow President Zelaya, said senior U.S. officials. Washington's ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, sought to facilitate a dialogue between the president's office, the Honduran parliament and the military.

The efforts accelerated over the weekend, as Washington grew increasingly alarmed. "The players decided, in the end, not to listen to our message," said one U.S. official involved in the diplomacy. On Sunday, the U.S. embassy here tried repeatedly to contact the Honduran military directly, but was rebuffed. Washington called the removal of President Zelaya a coup and said it wouldn't recognize any other leader.

The U.S. stand was unpopular with Honduran deputies. One congressman, Toribio Aguilera, got prolonged applause from his colleagues when he urged the U.S. ambassador to reconsider. Mr. Aguilera said the U.S. didn't understand the danger that Mr. Zelaya and his friendships with Mr. Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro posed.

Who would leak that and why? If the purpose was to support the coup by hook or crook, why go on record at all? Else it was misdirection, but then why would Zelaya himself say that the Americans were not involved unless he knew it to be true? And how does this from Obama help those ends?

"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," he added. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. ... We don't want to go back to a dark past."

It seems likely that either the Americans got caught screwing around where they shouldn't have been and backtracked or they actually were trying to prevent it. But if they were supportive and then left the coup to hang, why would the coup participants keep the secret? Did the general assume the Americans would go along? Did the lack of a strong position on behalf of the Americans give that impression? If so, what should be made of that? Is it really possible that the Americans are taking a more deliberate, less definite position in foreign relations?

Not to be too indulgent here, but I'm reminded of a baseball pitcher with a pathetic fastball that somehow strikes out major league hitters. His other pitches are just so slow that it makes his "fastball" look so fast that batters mistake it and miss. Is the world viewing America as Bush ran it, and now the difference appears so stark that misinterpretation arises?

Just thoughts I'm having. That's all.

Posted by: Ryan | Jun 30 2009 17:46 utc | 103

telesur amongst others are reporting an intensification of the repression. deaths of demonstrators. mass arrests. forbidding movement within the country.

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 30 2009 18:11 utc | 104

Honduran Coup Turns Violent, Sanctions Imposed

Thousands of Hondurans are now in the streets to protest the coup d'etat in their country. They have been met with tear gas, anti-riot rubber bullets, tanks firing water mixed with chemicals, and clubs. Police have moved in to break down barricades and soldiers used violence to push back protesters at the presidential residence, leaving an unknown number wounded.

If the coup leaders were desperate when they decided to forcibly depose the elected president, they are even more desperate now. Stripped of its pretense of legality by universal repudiation and faced with a popular uprising, the coup has turned to more violent means.

The scoreboard in the battle for Honduras shows the coup losing badly. It has not gained a single point in the international diplomatic arena, it has no serious legal points, and the Honduran people are mobilizing against it. As the military and coup leaders resort to brute force, they rack up even more points against them in human rights and common decency.

Only one factor brought the coup to power and only one factor has enabled it to hold on for these few days—control of the armed forces. Now even that seems to be eroding.

Reports are coming in that several battalions—specifically the Fourth and Tenth—have rebelled against coup leadership. Both Zelaya and his supporters have been very conscious that within the armed forces there are fractures. Instead of insulting the army, outside the heavily guarded presidential residence many protesters chant, "Soldiers, you are part of the people."

President Zelaya has been remarkably respectful in calling on the army to "correct its actions." It is likely the coup will continue to lose its grip on the army as intensifying mobilizations force it to confront its own people.

carlsen also optimistically thinks the u.s. is being "reasonable"

After years of the Bush administration, when the commitment to democracy abroad was decided more on the basis of ideological affinities than democratic practice, some sectors have trouble accepting that the U.S. government is condemning the overthrow of a president who espouses left-wing causes. Note the obstinacy of reporters at today's State Department press conference:

QUESTION: "So Ian, I'm sorry, just to confirm—so you're not calling it a coup, is that correct? Legally, you're not considering it a coup?"

MR. KELLY: "Well, I think you all saw the OAS statement last night, which called it a coup d'état, and you heard what the Secretary just said ..." (Clinton explicitly called it a coup).

This discussion and another drawn-out discussion in which reporters attempted to open up a window of doubt over support for reinstatement of Zelaya went on quite a while. Ian Kelly, the Dept. spokesperson, held fast as reporters tried to equate supposed violations of law by Zelaya with a military coup in a fantasy "everyone's-at-fault" scenario. Kelly reiterated that the coup is indeed an illegal coup and the only solution is the return of the elected president.

The "coup question" is more than semantics and has implications beyond conservative media's political agenda to justify the coup leaders. When a legal definition of coup is established, most U.S. aid to Honduras must be cut off.

Here's the relevant part of the foreign operations bill:

Sec. 7008. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to titles III through VI of this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.

So far, the Obama administration has focused on diplomatic efforts and is waiting to see how long the Honduran stand-off will last before looking to specific sanctions. The probability that the coup's days are numbered makes that a reasonable strategy for the time being.

of course, as we're starting to see in the streets there today, "waiting to see how long the Honduran stand-off will last" is hardly comforting to those at the receiving end of a repressive military apparatus in the employ of the coup plotters

Posted by: b real | Jun 30 2009 18:57 utc | 105

1. The Hondurean constitution clearly forbids reelection. Honduras is a democracy, albeit a fragile one, and the president's powers did not include what he was trying to do. If I may reverse one of the arguments used here: if he didn't agree with that, he could try to change the constitution legally.

2. Ignoring the explicit ruling by the Hondurean Supreme Court and the Congress (and being opposed even by the majority of his own party) Zelaya tried to force the Army commander to distribute the ballots. The commander refused and was ousted. Lacking internal support to go ahead with his plan, he turned to Chavez, who sent in his supporters and even printed the ballots in Venezuela.

3. In view of all that, the Supreme Court ordered the president to be removed. Legally, I might add. The second in command was empowered - again, according to the constitution. It seems to me the disposition against reelection in the Hondurean constitution is a sensible one and a good vaccine against populism, which as you know is endemic in Latin America. (You may disagree, of course, but then I would say one has to be in favour of infinite reelection both in Venezuela and in Colombia - after all, aren't both countries "democracies"?)

So where is the coup? It is quite telling about the prevailing mindset here that the only Hondureans who tried to voice their view of events from where they are actually happening were scorned, insulted and finally ignored. After all, why deal with concrete facts when you have your geopolitical chessboard clearly laid out in your mind? Why bother with coherence - oh yeah, now it's time for the US to step in - when that would require you to look at your own laboriously construted chimeras under a different light?

The simple fact is, we Latin Americans are fed up with dictatorships, both on the right and on the left. We have tasted democracy and we like it. The so-called left seems a bit slow to realize that. The current trend, now that the Left enjoys a solid foothold in Latin America, seems to be the adoption of plebiscites as a way to bypass formal institutions and "talk directly to the people". The people, however, can be led to approve whatever you wish. According to a recent public opinion poll in Brazil, more than 80% would be favourable to the death sentence, more than 70% are against abortion (which is legal under certain circumstances) and more than 50% approve the lynching of sexual abusers. If you held a plebiscite right now to crown our own highly popular president Lula emperor, the proposition would surely be approved. I doubt matters would be much different even in more civilized and cultured countries.

The purpose of institutions is precisely to prevent lynching mobs. They act as a cushion between the people and the ruling powers. Institutions are not to be bypassed whenever you feel your cause is right, but rather to be slowly improved until they reflect more closely the wishes of the people. And democracy is not a dictatorship based on statistics; it also has a lot to do with protecting the dissenting minorities, whoever they are. Taking all matters that interest you to public consultation is a devious way of debasing formal institutions and eliminating dissent, which is precisely what Chaves is doing in Venezuela (based on good things he is actually doing, like the huge improvement in medical services to the poor) and what Zelaya, fortunately, failed to accomplish in Honduras.

As you can see once again, I no longer belong here. I keep coming back for occasion enlightening and for the sheer abstract pleasure that intelligence and good writing provide, but it amazes me at times that such intelligent people would in the end resort to stark binary reasoning in spite of any and all evidence, as it happened some time ago the the FARC in Colombia. Lately it seems to me that all debate, about any subject whatsoever, can be summed up as follows: anti-US = good. That's easy and comforting, but also false. The discussion in this thread seems to have lost a bit of focus because at the moment it is difficult to assess precisely what the US wants in Honduras and, therefore, to oppose it. Come on, you can certainly do better than that.

Posted by: Pedro | Jun 30 2009 19:15 utc | 106

pedro

i understand your argument but i do not agree with them. you say there have been dictatorships of the left in the hemisphere - i simply do not see how you can say that - whatever the new leaders of latin america- chavez, morales or correa - they are in no sense & in no way - videla, stroessner, pinochet & plethora of plutocrats who have pillaged the people.

whatever is happening inlatin america today is extremely frail - the story as victor jara would sing does not yet have an end

it seems where i see popular will you see a mob, worse an unthinking mob it seems to me that the leaders & the elites within the hemisphere ough to trust their people & learn from them

from what i remember from the threads on colombia there was no support for farc ipso facto but question the murderous history of colombia

in this instance, in honduras - it seems as it is elsewhere - class struggle by other means & yes i want the oligarchies to dissapear

in brief i don't feel hysteric about that - nor stuck in any binary condition - if there is a latin american intellectual who speaks to me - it is eduardo galleano - & he is no ideologue

pedro, your voice has always been special here - it isn't a church - we should neither hold our toungues or speak with them

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 30 2009 19:37 utc | 107

The Hondurean constitution clearly forbids reelection. Honduras is a democracy, albeit a fragile one, and the president's powers did not include what he was trying to do.

dangl:

The key question leading up to the coup was whether or not to hold a referendum on Sunday, June 28 – as Zelaya wanted – on organizing an assembly to re-write the country’s constitution.

As one media analyst pointed out, while many major news outlets in the US, including the Miami Herald, Wall St. Journal and Washington Post, said an impetus for the coup was specifically Zelaya’s plans for a vote to allow him to extend his term in office, the actual ballot question was to be: "Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?"

Nations across Latin America, including Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, have recently re-written their constitutions. In many aspects the changes to these documents enshrined new rights for marginalized people and protected the nations’ economies from the destabilizing effects of free trade and corporate looting.

2. Ignoring the explicit ruling by the Hondurean Supreme Court and the Congress (and being opposed even by the majority of his own party) Zelaya tried to force the Army commander to distribute the ballots. The commander refused and was ousted. Lacking internal support to go ahead with his plan, he turned to Chavez...

Leading up to the coup, on June 10, members of teacher, student, indigenous and union groups marched to demand that Congress back the referendum on the constitution, chanting, "The people, aware, defend the Constituent [Assembly]." The Honduran Front of Teachers Organizations [FOM], with some 48,000 members, also supported the referendum. FOM leader Eulogio Chávez asked teachers to organize the expected referendum this past Sunday in schools, according to the Weekly News Update on the Americas.

The Supreme Court ruled that the referendum violated the constitution as it was taking place during an election year. When Honduran military General Romeo Vasquez refused to distribute ballots to citizens and participate in the preparations for the Sunday referendum, Zelaya fired him on June 24. The Court called for the reinstatement of Vasquez, but Zelaya refused to recognize the reinstatement, and proceeded with the referendum, distributing the ballots and planning for the Sunday vote.

The simple fact is, we Latin Americans are fed up with dictatorships, both on the right and on the left. We have tasted democracy and we like it. The so-called left seems a bit slow to realize that. The current trend, now that the Left enjoys a solid foothold in Latin America, seems to be the adoption of plebiscites as a way to bypass formal institutions and "talk directly to the people". The people, however, can be led to approve whatever you wish.
...
Institutions are not to be bypassed whenever you feel your cause is right, but rather to be slowly improved until they reflect more closely the wishes of the people. And democracy is not a dictatorship based on statistics; it also has a lot to do with protecting the dissenting minorities, whoever they are.

Members of social, indigenous and labor organizations from around the country have concentrated in the city’s capital, organizing barricades around the presidential palace, demanding Zelaya’s return to power.

we already get the ideal that the elite are the "dissenting minorities" - how about if we think of the organizations mentioned above as social, indigenous & labor institutions?

Posted by: b real | Jun 30 2009 19:45 utc | 108

Argentina (1930-1932; 1943-1946; 1955-1958; 1966-1973; 1976-1983)
Bolivia (1861-1871; 1876-1880; 1930-1931; 1936-1944; 1951-1952; 1964-1966; 1969-1979; 1980-1982)
Brazil (1889-1894; 1964-1985)
Chile (1891-1896; 1924-1925; 1927-1931; 1973-1990)
Colombia (1953-1958)
Costa Rica (1870-1876; 1877-1882; 1917-1919)
Cuba (1933-1940; 1952-1955)
Dominican Republic (1916-1922; 1930-1961)
Ecuador (1876-1883; 1937-1938; 1963-1966; 1972-1979)
El Salvador (1885-1911; 1931-1935; 1944-1980)
Guatemala (1944-1945; 1957-1958; 1963-1966; 1970-1986)
Haiti (1950-1956; 1986-1990)
Honduras (1903-1907; 1956-1957; 1963-1965; 1972-1982)
Mexico (1877-1911)
Nicaragua (1937-1947; 1950-1956; 1967-1979)
Panama (1968-1989)
Paraguay (1940-1948; 1954-1993)
Peru (1845-1872; 1876-1879; 1886-1895; 1914-1915; 1930-1931; 1933-1939; 1948-1950; 1962-1963; 1968-1980)
Suriname (1980-1988)
Uruguay (1876-1879; 1973-1985)
Venezuela (1908-1935; 1952-1959)

just the military dictatorships in latin america which does not include oligarchic tyranny which until very recently was all that was on offer. & what is happening today is moderate - from social democrats, to left peronism , 'socailism of the 21 century' - this movement of the left to these levels of power is very very new - they are fragile & i honour you enough pedro to wonder why you bend the truth in regard to your hemisphere

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 30 2009 20:02 utc | 109

Right, Pedro, I have been reading that same shit time and time again in spanish forums from the obvious anti-Chavez 'anticommunist' scum.

So please explain it again. So what is the 'constitutional' 'legal' procedure to remove a president in Honduras? Send a fully armed amry 'comando' to the presidental residence while most people is still sleeping, secretly ship the president to a foreign country and then make the supreme court to rule the president is no longer the president, the congress to forge stupid resignation letter and then select a propper ex-militar as new 'interim' president. Then to make it even more 'legal' and 'democratic' and because they know that all the population is behind the democratic removal of the president they fill the streets with tanks, armed soldiers and riot police.

Legal my ass. First there was a military coup. Then as usually they produced the corresponding 'legal' excuses.

I'm not sure what is the real stand of the US here, at first I thought the militars went alone, but with the official slow response to the matter I'm not so sure. May be it's really a problem with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. And the US has a dog with any that sounds or smells like Chavez. Clinton was the other day still calling for 'dialogue' not immediate restitution of the democratically elected president, later they changed the tone as they were completely out of step with the rest of the world.

In any case it takes a single phone call from Obama to the propper people in Honduras to make this coup history. After all the Honduras army is just a little brutal branch of the US army in all but name. That his phone call hasn't been made yet means that some people is still trying to win something out of the coup. However in my opinion any more delays will play on the hands of Chavez and all the other democratic leftist forces in the region.

Posted by: ThePaper | Jun 30 2009 20:03 utc | 110

the list of american military intervention is too long to list here but it is true to say the hemisphere has been covered in the blood of the people at the behest of u s imperialism & their paid up tyrannies

el salvador, guatemala, honduras, el salvador, bolivia - these just the most notable examples of direct american intervention but no country there has been untouched by imperial greed & not one country is without generations of people being bloodied by that greed

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 30 2009 20:24 utc | 111

I'm getting tired of people like Pedro coming on this site and spreading misinformation. Removing an elected President at the point of a gun is not democracy in any way shape or form. How can a question like this:

Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?"

be interpretted by a rational human being as the President just wants to run again and get reelcted by bypassing the constitution? Where does it say that this question gives the President permission to run in the November election? If the National Assembly does come to be - the most the President can hope for is being allowed to run again after it makes a determination - which is obvious for even a child to understnd - well after the November election. We don't even know if that part of the constitution would even be changed. If you are going to come on here and argue your case at least stick to the facts and spare us your personal fantasies.

Posted by: Sam | Jun 30 2009 21:12 utc | 112

maybe its a different pedro

If I were you guys I would keep a close look on Venezuela. I'm starting to believe that's the next target, not Iran. I don't know how the story is playing elsewhere, but this is what has happened in the last few days:

1. Colombia, which can be viewed as a rather spacious American military base, kidnapped a rebel leader inside Venezuela. The US openly supported the pirate action, mentioning - why am I not surprised? - the "war on terra".

2. Hotheaded Chavez was quite enraged, demanding apologies, calling his ambassador back, the usual stuff. He also made an irate (and very funny) speech pointing his finger directly at Bush and proposing to bet one dollar that he would outlast him in power.

3. Brazil, which is trying to mediate the conflict, has just received a diplomatic message (would "order" be more appropriate?) from the US demanding more pressure on Chavez to "stop supporting terrorists". In the meantime, a US senator has proposed the inclusion of Venezeula in the rogue state list.

4.Background: a few weeks ago, it was announced that Venezuela & China had signed an agreement for joint exploration of oilfields. That, I believe, would make it a bit more complicated to send a few marines later on to spread democracy in democratic but oil-rich Venezuela.

5. Background 2: As far as I know, Venezuela is a more important oil supplier to the US than Iraq.

I can hardly wait for the incident (military? terrorist?) that will convince the US population of the need to bring some order into their own backyard and preserve their freedoms. Militarily it wouldn't be too complicated, it could be pulled out with a couple of guys on leave from Iraq. It's either that or a coup within the next six months. If I were Chavez, I'd begin to take survival classes with good ole buddy Fidel Castro.

Posted by: pedro | Jan 25, 2005 12:57:27 AM | 16

Posted by: annie | Jun 30 2009 21:41 utc | 113

r'giap,

Seems to me that Zelaya was asking for resistance from the opposing party by refusing to step down from power after his term is about to expired. So I don't understand why Zelaya and others from the Liberal Party didn't just have someone else of like mind ready waiting in the wings to replace him as their next presidential candidate. It's hard for me to believe that there's no one from Zelaya's party capable of running for president in his place.

Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 30 2009 22:45 utc | 114

i think what i find most astounding given the fact that so many latin americans have lost their lives because the u s wanted to have hegemony in this sphere & used every trick in the book - holy & unholy - after all it was the training manuals for torture that the u s created there that was later to be used in iraq & afghanistan. latin america was really the laboratory of terror for the empire & the people were the unfortunate subjects

a century of hell

& these new leaders of latin america practically have not taken from the oligarchs - it has left them there - they still live their lives completely divorced from the pain & poverty of the vast majority of the people. even hugo chavez who really has a mandate to do so - has not expropriated them. they complain about the little they have to change within themselves like old white south afrikanners. that is the most scandalous aspect - for the rich their lives have changed very little indeed under morales, or correa, or chavez, or ortega

their riches are still based on the exploitation of the majority of people. what have the people of latin america sought. peace. first of all. peace. they have demanded social justice & they still fight for equality of opportunity - or just plain recognition in the case of the indigenous people. in my book they have been exceedingly moderate in their demands - it is not these people who wield violence - the violence still remains the weapon of the powerful

the elites & yes the middle class cry over criminality but in fact they never, nver want an open examination of that criminality because the truth of that would be a condemnation of their privilege. the people are not borne to criminality - indeed the opposite is the truth & it is no wonder to me that the theology of liberation was borne here, that the pedagogy of the oppressed was born here & a humanism was borne here that takes into acoount the difficult & beautiful multiplicity of our lives

& but the oligarchs prefer blood

they prefer to rule from the roll of dollars

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 30 2009 23:24 utc | 115

Cynthia @ 114:

Seems to me that Zelaya was asking for resistance from the opposing party by refusing to step down from power after his term is about to expired.

Seems to me that if you are going to make such an extaordinary claim you should at least provide a link. He has refused to step down from power during his term not after. He was trying to get a referendum to go alnog with the elections - not cancelling the elections and declaring himself defacto President. Where are you getting your info from?

Posted by: Sam | Jun 30 2009 23:56 utc | 116

Time to put an end to this rumor that Zelaya was trying to run for re-election in the upcoming November election. There is no mention on wikpedia of Manuel Zelaya running in the upcoming November elections. In about.com under Latin American History they make it clear that any decision that would allow him to run would be made by a vote in the November election:

Following the lead of other leftist leaders in Ecuador, Bolivia and other nations, Zelaya sought in 2009 to change the constitution to favor him and his policies. The current Honduras constitution does not allow for presidents to be re-elected. The date of June 28, 2009 was set as the day that voters would essentially decide whether or not to have a yes/no vote on electing a constitutional assembly in the November 2009 elections. Zelaya’s political foes seized on this as an attempt to circumvent the clearly-worded constitution and the Supreme Court declared the vote unconstitutional.

http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/presidentscentralamerica/p/09mzelaya.htm

According to the BBC Zelaya running for re-elction is an accusation:

Profile: Honduras' Manuel Zelaya

Limited to a single four-year term in office under the current constitution, he was accused of seeking to change the law to allow him to stand for a second term.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123134.stm

Even an obvious enemy in Honduras makes it clear that it is an accusation as this is the only reference to Zelaya wanting to run in any election:

The illegal vote is Mel Zelaya’s way to stay in power indefinitely and is following in Hugo Chaves’ footsteps.

http://in-honduras.com/wordpress/?tag=mel-zelaya

An associated press report dated the day of the coup (obviously written before the coup) makes no mention of Zelaya running in the November election and clearly names the upcoming candidates:

Sunday's referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution.

The Supreme Court, Congress and the attorney general have all said the referendum he is sponsoring is illegal because the constitution says some of its clauses cannot be changed.

The constitution, approved in 1982 as Honduras was throwing off two decades of nearly uninterrupted military rule, states that any politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from public service for 10 years.

The showdown over Sunday's referendum has all but overshadowed the election campaign, which pits Porfirio Lobo of the opposition National Party against Liberal Party candidate Elvin Santos, who resigned as vice president last year complaining that Zelaya had been trying to sideline him in the government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_constitution

The above article states the constitution bars any politician promoting presidential re-election with a 10 year ban from public service. Clearly if the accusation against Zelaya were true - that he was trying to run in the November election - there would be no need to kidnap him in the middle of the night under the point of a gun barrel.

Posted by: Sam | Jul 1 2009 1:22 utc | 117

& it seems the new butchers in honduras want to go about their business silently - delicately. christ on al jazeera they call chavez, morales, & correa far left - what kind of idiocy are they going to reduce us to

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jul 1 2009 1:27 utc | 118

Time to put an end to this rumor that Zelaya was trying to run for re-election in the upcoming November election. There is no mention on wikpedia of Manuel Zelaya running in the upcoming November elections. In about.com under Latin American History they make it clear that any decision that would allow him to run would be made by a vote in the November election:

Following the lead of other leftist leaders in Ecuador, Bolivia and other nations, Zelaya sought in 2009 to change the constitution to favor him and his policies. The current Honduras constitution does not allow for presidents to be re-elected. The date of June 28, 2009 was set as the day that voters would essentially decide whether or not to have a yes/no vote on electing a constitutional assembly in the November 2009 elections. Zelaya’s political foes seized on this as an attempt to circumvent the clearly-worded constitution and the Supreme Court declared the vote unconstitutional.

http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/presidentscentralamerica/p/09mzelaya.htm

According to the BBC Zelaya running for re-elction is an accusation:

Profile: Honduras' Manuel Zelaya

Limited to a single four-year term in office under the current constitution, he was accused of seeking to change the law to allow him to stand for a second term.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123134.stm

Even an obvious enemy in Honduras makes it clear that it is an accusation as this is the only reference to Zelaya wanting to run in any election:

The illegal vote is Mel Zelaya’s way to stay in power indefinitely and is following in Hugo Chaves’ footsteps.

http://in-honduras.com/wordpress/?tag=mel-zelaya

continued next post

Posted by: Sam | Jul 1 2009 1:45 utc | 119

An associated press report dated the day of the coup (obviously written before the coup) makes no mention of Zelaya running in the November election and clearly names the upcoming candidates:

Sunday's referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution.

The Supreme Court, Congress and the attorney general have all said the referendum he is sponsoring is illegal because the constitution says some of its clauses cannot be changed.

The constitution, approved in 1982 as Honduras was throwing off two decades of nearly uninterrupted military rule, states that any politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from public service for 10 years.

The showdown over Sunday's referendum has all but overshadowed the election campaign, which pits Porfirio Lobo of the opposition National Party against Liberal Party candidate Elvin Santos, who resigned as vice president last year complaining that Zelaya had been trying to sideline him in the government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_constitution

The above article states the constitution bars any politician promoting presidential re-election with a 10 year ban from public service. Clearly if the accusation against Zelaya were true - that he was trying to run in the November election - there would be no need to kidnap him in the middle of the night under the point of a gun barrel.

Posted by: Sam | Jul 1 2009 1:45 utc | 120

rgiap, I lashed out because I was indignant at the way the Hondurean commentators were treated – how dare you come here disturb our nicely organized black-and-white view of your own country? I meant no disrespect; it’s just that this sort of patronizing attitude towards Latin America often gets to me. Calmer now, I can say that your timeline of dictatorships proves exactly my point. Most Latin American countries are democratic nowadays, some leaning to the right, some to the left (although I must say I distrust this sort of automatic classification because, again, it seems too Manichean; for instance, the Brazilian government is politically to the left and economically to the right, clearly favouring banks and big business while at the same time pandering to the left in foreign policy – which unfortunately means automatic alignment with any thug who claims to oppose the US - and demonizing our former president, leftist intellectual Cardoso, because he allegedly was a “neoliberal”). Anyway, back to the point: we’ve had our share of dictatorships, as your list shows. All of them right-wing and US-supported, no question about that. I participated in the struggle for democracy and was elated when Lula assumed power, but then I slowly began to realize that the authoritarian virus contaminates both sides, which finally led me to a deep distrust of ideologies of any kind. What I want now is just (a) democracy and (b) efficiency. That’s how I believe we can slowly get out of our atavic misery. It’s not the US’ fault; it’s our own. Blaming the US for all the evil in the world is a way of not looking at ourselves in the mirror. We have been systematically exploited, sure, be we have also been corrupt, incompetent and stupid. As we say here, it takes two to dance a tango. And I don’t believe the US has anything to do with recent events in Latin America; they have their hands full with other problems - empire-building is a very demanding task - and for now we are fairly irrelevant as long as we don’t step on their toes. The next Brazilian president, as it has been in the last 14 years, will surely come from the left – both candidates do – and nobody seems to be overly concerned about that. It’s up to us now to do the right thing.

Which is precisely what worries me. Now that the Left has finally attained the upper hand in Latin America, and by democratic means – with the exception of Cuba, it never happened otherwise in Latin America – to my astonishment it is engaging in the same dangerous and ultimately suicidal totalitarian trip. We seem to be condemned to repeat ourselves. Instead of shutting down or emasculating democratic institutions as our military thugs did in the past, leftist rulers simply bypass them. Lula’s best allies and advisors come from the old corrupt oligarchy which worked with the military. He himself brought the vampires back from their tombs. It feels as if we are somehow stranded in the 60’s and can’t get out into modernity. The current widespread reelection folly plaguing Latin America has two possible outcomes: either the radical Left prevails and we turn into left-wing dictatorships or the Right reacts and we turn into right-wing dictatorships. It’s all the same to me. I don’t admire Cuba nor I want to live there. I can understand why things turned that way there a few decades ago, but let’s call things by their name: Cuba is a leftist military dictatorship with a dynastic line of succession, just like North Korea. How about proposing that the Castro brothers hold a referendum to ask whether they should remain in power?

It seems to me that most leftist elected rulers in our sad neck of the woods, instead of worrying about doing well while they are in power – which would presumably ensure the continuation of their good deeds through their democratically elected successors – once in power see themselves as irreplaceable and immediately begin to plot to remain there indefinitely. I would exclude from that Mrs Bachelet from Chile, who seems to be truly a democratic leftist, a rare animal (as was our former president Cardoso). But I would include Lula, who in his immense vanity seemed inclined to change the constitution and go for a third mandate (through a referendum, how else?). He gave it up eventually because Brazil is a bit more complex than Venezuela. All of these new Fathers of the Poor follow the path carved by Chavez, of course, which is to erode democracy from the inside by means of “direct consultations with the people”. If you are able to claim this telluric connection with the deep heart of the masses, eventually you begin to wonder why have courts, Congresses, instances of democratic representation, all of them corrupt (which is true, sadly) and big wasters of money. Why allow the functioning of a free press when it goes against the wishes of the majority and, God forbid, dares to criticize the government? Since all opposition (in the Brazilian case, ironically, even the one to the left as Lula steadily migrated to the center) is in fact trying to twart the purest wishes of this mythical entity called “the people”, it follows that they should all be seen and treated as traitors. If these guys had their way – and by they I mean even close friends of mine who remained loyal to whatever they understand as “the cause” and who are still able to justify any abject behavior as long as it serves the greater good – people like me would be shot. Totalitarian souls always look the same, whether on the right or on the left.

So we have now a bunch of would-be tyrants who are slowly testing the waters to see how far they can go in bending our frail democracies to perpetuate themselves in power – because, of course, they are good, they are wise and they are irreplaceable. And I do mean that both ways, left and right. Unfortunately, in many cases they succeed – as is the case with Chavez – because conditions were so dire previously that it is not that hard to be seen as a saint and redeemer. As I believe I said in my previous post, Chavez is actually doing some pretty good work in Venezuela. I was there recently in a work trip and could see it for myself. But he should end his term in office, probably elect his successor and go home – something the fool won’t do because he believes he is a reincarnation of Simon Bolivar. It’s not enough to have power; it must also be unrestrained and eternal.

Now back to Honduras. There are saints in this episode. But I believe that (a) the president forced his hand and placed himself in an impossible situation; (b) the United States probably had nothing to do with the outcome and are now as surprised as anybody else (at this point undoubtedly trying to decide how to best exploit the situation to undermine Chavez, but that’s par for the course). Perhaps it would be better and cleaner if he had just been deposed and prosecuted – again, according to the Hondurean constitution – instead of all this stuff with soldiers on the streets. But I am glad he did not succeed, as I was glad when Chavez lost his superpower referendum a while ago. Nothing is really clear at this point, but it seems he did sign his resignation to avoid being deposed and then changed his mind when Chavez promised to back him. What is abundantly clear is that he was trying to change the rules in the middle of the game; if he hadn’t bluffed, his bluff evidently wouldn’t have been called. I am fed up with this victimization game people play when caught with their pants down, another of our Latin American specialties.

This, rgiap, is where we differ mostly, in spite of a deep brotherly bond I inexplicably feel to have with you – perhaps because of the love for music, perhaps because of your passion, misdirected as I often feel it is. You are probably the one who will miss MoA the most, and surely the one I will miss the most at MoA. You are the least cynical of us all. Having lost all faith in providential people and grandiose dreams and become a kind of outcast among people with strong beliefs, what is left to me is a concern with fairness and intellectual honesty. If I believed Zelaya could plot to extend his own term, I would be forced to grant the same benefit to right-wing Uribe in Colombia (he did try but he failed, which is also good news). I no longer believe, as I once did, that some acts are fair only when done by “our” guys. It was a slow and painful awakening to me, but I finally realized that injustice simply cannot be corrected by applying equal injustice in the opposite direction. Call me a legalist and a liberal, perhaps a reactionary. This is, for good or for worse, what I have finally become in middle age. I still believe in process: slow evolution, learning and improving little by little, trying to be fair and causing as little damage as possible. It does sound boring, but perhaps in the end striving to improve what is at our arms’ reach is the best we all can aspire to do.

To annie: yes, that was me alright. I changed my mind, that's all. That’s why I have mostly kept quiet at MoA: I ran out of truths. I still deeply despise Bush and all that he stands (or stood) for and I am still wary of Americans as a rule. It was fun then to see Chavez poke his finger at Bush, but it ceased to be fun when he started his Mussolini act.

To rgiap, on your last post: again, you seem to agree with me (“for the rich their lives have changed very little indeed under morales, or correa, or chavez, or ortega”). The Left has been in power in most of Latin America for more than a decade now. No one to blame now but ourselves. What has changed so far? Very little. They called the old oligarchies back into play to join the new privileged class (union leaders, party members, social organizers, ideologues, the usual ass-kissers), threw a few crumbs to the poor and spent an inordinate amount of time and energy undermining our hard-earned democratic institutions in order to perpetuate themselves & their comrades in government – because, evidently, redemption is a work of generations and one cannot be restrained by bourgeois legalities. No outside conspiracy there, believe me. Just hubris, stupidity and greed. I am fed up with socialist utopias. This has become a kind of religion that thrives on resentment and promises you a paradise without any connection to human life on Earth. In our particular case, claiming good intentions is something that apparently absolves you of both dishonesty and sheer managerial incompetence. I want results. Now.

To Sam: I stand corrected. Apparently there was indeed a previous attempt by Zelaya to organize a “binding” referendum about reelection. That was vetoed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the constitution expressly forbids reelection. Then he tried to hold a non-binding referendum about generic changes to the constitution. Again, the Supreme Court and the congress ruled that out on the grounds that no referendum could be held in a period of 180 days before and after elections. He confronted the Supreme Court and ordered the military to distribute the ballots. The head of the Army refused and was fired. The courts ordered him to reinstate him. He refused. On Saturday, a few hours before the elections, he issued a decree whose article 1 was the one your mentioned. Article 2 calls for “all departments and organs of public administration” to participate in said referendum and Article 3 appoints the National Statistics Institute, which responds directly to the president and has no role at all in holding elections, to organize, fiscalize and count the ballots, at which point the Supreme Court ordered him removed from government. This is what I could find out about the episode. Perhaps some of our Hondurean friends can clarify the matter.

However you look at it, I think you will agree that the man was seeking confrontation. Perhaps he miscalculated. Perhaps he counted on support from the population or from Chavez. My question stands: why do it? He was legitimately and freely elected. If he was doing a good government, most probably he would be able to make his successor. Perhaps the outcome can be partly explained by something in the article you quote: “The constitution, approved in 1982 as Honduras was throwing off two decades of nearly uninterrupted military rule, states that any politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from public service for 10 years.” Two decades of fierce dictatorship, the same we had here in Brazil, leaves one a bit paranoid. I don't discount that he had strong and devious oponents, but democracy is pretty recent for Hondureans and surely must be a touchy issue. Why force his hand?

To all mooners: OK, that’s it, I will now shut up for good. I’ve already taken too much of your time & space. Thank you all for your patience. I wish you all happiness in the vast prairies of cyberspace.

Posted by: Pedro | Jul 1 2009 6:37 utc | 121

How odd.

Pedro apparently doesn't know that Chavez came back with a second, more concise and targeted referendum, and succeeded.

Very odd, don't y'all think?

Apparently, Pedro, you have yet to recognize that all of the land -- the continent-or-two -- south of Texas, and all the islands of the Caribbean, are essentially being forced to fight against the United States to enact their democratic, wealth-sharing reforms.

The US has already organized two (!) coup attempts on Chavez -- one of which briefly succeeded -- and there are rumours that there were one or two others that never got off the ground.

Cuba has been in a 50 year state of siege.

Nicaragua recently re-elected Ortega to the presidency, after the US spent trillions of dollars and murdered hundreds of thousands of people, in the most horrifying ways imaginable, to try and keep him from power.

Clearly, in an environment where the enemy has violently forced itself into one's entire country, into its governing institutions, police, banks, and military, then truly democratic reforms that challenge that enemy will require some sacrifices.

So tell me, Pedro (and trust me: answering truthfully, regardless of what that means, will go far towards extending your authority on this subject):

What do you know about poverty, and sacrifice?

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jul 1 2009 7:24 utc | 122

Obama is allowing himself to get sucked into the shady clandestine politics of USA/Latin-America militaries & power-brokers just like Carter did with Iran & Reagan with Iran-Contra. He's taken the bait for resolution via the back-door. He could have come out on the side of those demanding that the Hondura President be re-instated otherwise this may come back to haunt him.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 1 2009 10:43 utc | 123

To Sam: I stand corrected. Apparently there was indeed a previous attempt by Zelaya to organize a “binding” referendum about reelection. That was vetoed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the constitution expressly forbids reelection.

Wrong again Pedro. If the Supreme Court had any grounds at all that Zelaya was even promoting re-election he would have been simply barred from public office. I have already provided you with the Supreme Court's rational in post 119 and I will repeat it again for you:

Sunday's referendum has no legal effect: it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution.

The Supreme Court, Congress and the attorney general have all said the referendum he is sponsoring is illegal because the constitution says some of its clauses cannot be changed.

In and of itself it just a question and there is nothing there that could not be argued in a court of law that the question is in fact legal. And I quote "some of the clauses cannot be changed" does not mean everything in the constitution cannot be changed. Now, you can argue his motif, but it clearly has nothing to do with the upcoming November election as I have made perfectly clear in post 112. If you have facts that prove otherwise then please provide them. Here is what Eva Golinger wrote about that constitution:

The current constitution, written in 1982 during the height of the Reagan Administration’s dirty war in Central America, was designed to ensure those in power, both economic and political, would retain it with little interference from the people.

I recommend you read the whole thing

I participated in the struggle for democracy and was elated when Lula assumed power, but then I slowly began to realize that the authoritarian virus contaminates both sides, which finally led me to a deep distrust of ideologies of any kind.

You can't blame this phenomenon exclusivlely on the leaders. It is the people that ultimately decide who is in power in a democracy and the election track record for politicians that truly work for the people is poor to say the least. No matter how educated or enlightened that society is, people just don't elect them into power or rarely do. Even Lula never stood a chance to get elected President and lost until he agreed to pander to the elite. When he was a liberal and ran as a liberal he got smeared and lost. When he pandered to the elite, not only did he win he was re-elected by the people.

Wikpedia Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

The morale of this story is that people that try to take on the establishment are generally not looked highly upon by the average person on the street. Whether their perceptions are colored by the media or smooth talking politicians is irrelevent. It is what it is. Take you for example. Here we are discussing a politician in Honduras that truly tried to take on the esatblishment and he's got you coming on this board and sliming him and accussing him of just trying to take power, which is exactly the accusation the establichment is promoting.

Posted by: Sam | Jul 1 2009 10:55 utc | 124

Sam,

If Zelaya has no intentions of running for a second term, what other reason would he have for wanting to call for a referendum that would enable a sitting president, such as himself, to run for a second term?

Don't get me wrong, the Honduran military, led by the opposition party (I gather), were wrong, no matter how you slice it, for ousting Zelaya from the presidency. But I suppose that one could argue, with good reason, that Zelaya is coming across as a power-hungry dictator for trying to change the constitution which would give himself a shot at re-election.

Think about it: if Bush Junior, say for instance, tried to have the US Constitution changed so that he could run for a third term, many American would think, and rightfully so, that he was trying to turn our democratically-elected presidency into a dictatorship. As I said before, a US president, whether Democrat or Republican, should never feel the need to seek a third term, simply because there are plenty of like-minded candidates that will step into his shoes and run the presidential office about the same way as those did before him.

Posted by: Cynthia | Jul 1 2009 15:43 utc | 125

...what other reason would he have for wanting to call for a referendum that would enable a sitting president, such as himself, to run for a second term?

To change the system so that people can choose to have a president sit in a 2nd or 3rd term.

Just because he's changing the system doesn't mean he's doing it for himself; and having a referendum where one asks the people if they want something isn't the same as getting the congress to pass a law or an amendment legalizing it.

if Bush Junior, say for instance, tried to have the US Constitution changed so that he could run for a third term, many American would think, and rightfully so, that he was trying to turn our democratically-elected presidency into a dictatorship.

We would have thought that for many, many more reasons that just the attempt at getting a third term.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jul 1 2009 15:51 utc | 126

Cynthia @ 125:

If Zelaya has no intentions of running for a second term, what other reason would he have for wanting to call for a referendum that would enable a sitting president, such as himself, to run for a second term?

Please Cynthia re-read my posts carefully for you are ignoring the time line. Even if he prevails - and gets his wish for a referendum - and the people vote in favor to form a National Assembly, - which goes on and changes the constitution to allow him to run for another term - he still will not be able to run in the upcoming November election. The referendum itself would not even come up until the November election. No decision could even be made until after the election. The best he could hope for is being allowed to run in some future election. I can't beleive that I am having such a hard time explaining this simple concept. If Zelaya got everything he wanted the best he could hope for is that peopole will vote for him in some future election. This is hardly the stuff of a dictatorial President trying to stay in power that some people are trying to portray. How many countries on this planet only allow one term in office for an elected President? And please do think about it.

Posted by: Sam | Jul 1 2009 19:08 utc | 127

Sam,

Thanks for pointing out to me that my argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.;~)

Posted by: Cynthia | Jul 1 2009 20:46 utc | 128

For anyone interested Reuters has a set pictures available now at the following link:

Honduras defies world pressure to restore president

It has all the elements of a thriving new "democracy" in Honduras - tanks on the streets - tear gas being lobbed at crowds - a soldier pointing his rifle at a reporter - and of course the crowds of supporters cheering on the military suppression.

Here is a video presentation about developments in Honduras by the Real News Network:

Military coup in Honduras

Posted by: Sam | Jul 1 2009 21:47 utc | 129

Cynthia I am just stating the facts and not the political pablum offered up by the many biased sources in the media. The sad part about this is that Cesar Ham has been simply ignored as no media will give him the time of day. The good news is that it seems earlier reports of his death seem not to be true:

According to some reports, Ham was killed by military personnel who tried to arrest him June 28, 2009 during the 2009 Honduran political crisis.[4][2] The Honduran Army claims to have no information on him. [5] According to Narco News, initial reports of Ham's assassination "appear not to be accurate," and while other leaders of the PUD have been arrested, Ham is hiding in "a secure location."

wikpedia

The National Police told the Mexican wire service Notimex on June 28 that Ham was killed that morning when he resisted arrest. The report was false. He fled the country, saying there was an arrest order for him and Marcos Burgos, head of the government's Permanent Commission on Contingencies (COPECO). On the evening of June 29 the two men landed at El Salvador's Comalapa airport for a connecting flight to Nicaragua. They thanked El Salvador's leftist Farabundo Martí Front for National Liberation (FMLN) and Salvadoran president Mauricio Funes for their help.

ww4report

The fact that this man has to remain in hiding tells you everything you need to know about the corrupt coup regime in Honduras pretending to be acting in defense of the constitution. Where in the hell does it say in the Honduran constitution that it is okay to kidnap an elected President at the point of a gun and wisk him off to another country? I will be patiently waiting for all you fascist supporters to provide the evidence. Call me a liberal, call me a rebel, call me a son of a bitch, I'll proudly wear the label and speak truth to power until they bury me.

Posted by: Sam | Jul 1 2009 21:59 utc | 130

US suspends military activities with Honduras

The United States has suspended all military activities with Honduras until further notice, a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday, days after President Manuel Zelaya was deposed in a coup.

“We’ve postponed any activities in Honduras right now while we are assessing the situation,” Bryan Whitman told reporters, adding that he was referring to relations between the armed forces of both countries.

At the same time, the U.S. has delayed any decision to cut aid to Honduras until Monday in order to give diplomatic moves time to return ousted President Manuel Zelaya to power, a US official said Wednesday.

“We’re evaluating the impact of these actions (that ousted Zelaya) on our assistance programs,” a senior official in President Barack Obama’s administration told reporters on the condition of anonymity.

.....

But he added it “is important to note” that the US government is currently working with its partners in the 34-member Organization of American States (OAS) to try to restore “democratic and constitutional order” to Honduras following Sunday’s coup.

.....

Roberto Micheletti, who took over hours after Zelaya was bundled away to Costa Rica on Sunday, meanwhile denied that foreign funding had been cut and vowed to present the case against Zelaya to the international community.

“We’ll manage to explain to them what’s really happening here. There was no coup. It was a constitutional succession,” Micheletti told foreign journalists in a half-empty presidential palace, blaming Zelaya for breaking the law by trying to hold a referendum on a vote to change the constitution on Sunday.

....

NEW LEADERS DEFIANT

Leaders who took over in Honduras after President Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a coup will not negotiate despite an ultimatum from the Organization of American States to hand back power within 72 hours, interim president Roberto Micheletti told AFP on Wednesday.

....

Micheletti, who took over hours after Zelaya was bundled away to Costa Rica on Sunday, took a firm stance as he huddled with members of his new government in the heavily-guarded presidential palace.

“We can’t negotiate anything,” Micheletti said. “We can’t reach an agreement because there are orders to capture the ex-president Zelaya here for crimes he committed when he was an official.”

The country’s attorney general has ordered the arrest of Zelaya, who is now expected to return to the country at the weekend, at the end of the OAS deadline.

“He’ll never return to power,” Micheletti said. “He could return after resolving his (legal) problems… he could aspire to be a lawmaker at the national Congress, or a mayor of his town.”

a mayor of his town?

Posted by: annie | Jul 2 2009 2:49 utc | 131

I found this particularly interesting:

CNN BACKS COUP; SUSPENSION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN HONDURAS; EUROPEAN UNION RECALLS ALL AMBASSADORS FROM HONDURAS

CNN en Español, viewed throughout Latin America, has been backing the coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya since day 1, Sunday, June 28th. They initially referred to the events as a military coup during the early hours, then slowly transformed their headlines to call the coup a "forced succession". By the end of the day, dictator Roberto Micheletti was considered, by CNN, the "constitutional president" of Honduras and Zelaya was the "deposed" president.

Since then, CNN has shown about 90% coverage favorable of the coup government in Honduras, conducting interviews with Micheletti as well as those in his "cabinet". The "analysts" and "experts" providing insight and commentary on the coup in Honduras have all been either conservative U.S. voices of those on the Latin America right, like Alvaro Vargas Llosa. CNN has done little or no reporting on the mass protests on the streets in Honduras against the coup government, nor has it covered or reported on the detention of several Telesur and Associated Press journalists by military forces in Honduras this past Tuesday. CNN is also not providing much coverage of the major media blackout still in place in Honduras or the repressive measures taken by the coup government to impose states of emergency, suspend civil and human rights and mandate a national curfew through the weekend. And CNN is obsessed with making this whole thing to be about Chávez, and not about the internal class struggles in Honduras.

...

It continues.

And wasn't Pedro wondering why we were worried over this?

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jul 2 2009 15:56 utc | 132