Hondurans fearful ahead of disputed polls

TEGUCIGALPA (AFP) – Fears of violence spread through the Honduran capital ahead of Sunday’s post-coup elections, which have divided both the Central American country and the continent.

A military crackdown on dissenters after the June 28 ouster of President Manuel Zelaya and scores of small explosive attacks on media outlets and political targets have frayed nerves in a city already mired in gang violence.

De facto leader Roberto Micheletti, who stepped down briefly over the electoral period, on Saturday accused Zelaya supporters of secretly setting up bomb attacks to disturb the polls, and blamed them for putting “psychological pressure” on voters to urge them to boycott the vote.

Zelaya’s backers have called for people to stay at home to avoid being blamed for possible clashes.

Brazil and Argentina have led regional support for their view that holding elections with Zelaya out of office — and still holed up in the Brazilian embassy — will legitimize the coup in a region with a painful history of dictatorships.

The United States, the country’s main commercial and military partner, has suggested it will support the polls in a bid to turn a page on the five-month crisis.

Levels of participation and the running of the vote will be key in evaluations of its credibility.

“It’s calm but people are frightened that they’ll be attacked over the vote,” said 27-year-old Patricia Calix, hawking fruit by the roadside in the Belen area, known for its street gangs.

Police this week carried out car and body searches in and around Tegucigalpa in a campaign to confiscate weapons in a country where guns are legal and widely visible.

But the main aim of the latest operation, which collected only a small haul, was to reassure citizens, said police spokesman Jorge Daniel Molina Galvez, underlining its “psychological value.”

“We’re living in an unusual and difficult situation,” said driver Manuel Aceitunos as officers searched his car.

“Sunday could be dangerous. You have to go out and vote and then remain at home.”

Around 30,000 soldiers and police have been deployed nationwide to distribute electoral material and oversee the polls.

Amnesty International said Friday that security forces had stockpiled 10,000 tear gas cans and other crowd control equipment.

Javier Zuniga, head of Amnesty’s Honduras delegation, decried what he called “an environment of fear and intimidation.”

Rights groups already expressed concern after several deaths and dozens of arrests in the aftermath of the coup, and have reported new threats and intimidation of pro-Zelaya activists.

Activists on both sides tore down electoral posters as the campaign to encourage voting gained force.

An ad in a newspaper sympathetic to the de facto regime warned voters that if they stayed away, their election history could easily be traced on the Internet.

“The real risk of the 29th (of November — election day) is that you don’t vote,” the ad said.

Back in Belen, where armed gangs roam pot-holed streets littered with rubbish, fears of violence are not new.

Presidential frontrunner Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo gained support in the area after his campaign on an anti-crime ticket.

Calix said she was planning to vote for him and welcomed the idea of more security forces.

“Pepe promises there’ll be more police, more security. I have children and I’m afraid for them to go out in the street,” she said.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091128/world/honduras_politics_coup_violence

Those who would take our liberty from us are growing impatient.  They have seen a door opened to them with the election of the mOssiah, Chairman Maobama, and they are emboldened by America’s forced dash towards socialism.  Yet you, the American people, still stand in their way.

It is you, the American people, who can stop and unseat our corrupt elected representatives.

It is you, the American people, who can stop Barack Hussein Obama from pushing us off the cliff of socialism.

It is you, the American people, though it may be difficult, who can recover from the near destruction of our economy.

It is you, the American people, the people of the greatest nation the earth has ever known, the people who made America the shining beacon of freedom around the globe, who stand in the way of an unelected global government who will strip your freedom and wealth from you.

The true agenda behind the global warming/climate change agenda has been revealed by its own proponents.  Global governance is their aim.  On the surface that can only mean lowering your standard of living, taking your wealth, taking your freedom, and giving it to those who have not earned it.  Those pushing for global governance have told us they want to do this.  But what aren’t they telling us?  As is always the case with any liberal proposal, what they tell you and what they really mean are two entirely different things.  The chances that what they steal from us will ever make it into the hands of the African tribesmen or Pygmies in the outback of Australia is remote at best.  They will never see any benefit from wealth stolen from us.  That wealth will only be used to line the pockets and consolidate the power of those who form this global government.

What can we do to aid the less fortunate around the world?  Can it be done without a one-world government?  How can it be done?  The answer is simple.

American exceptionalism and capitalism.

America has ALWAYS been the most generous nation on earth.  We have ALWAYS given more than all other nations combined to those less fortunate nations.  We have ALWAYS been the first on the scene providing aid when there is a natural disaster somewhere in the world.  How have we been able to do this?  Because our American ingenuity, and capitalist free market system have always produced more than we need.  When that system is destroyed, there will be nothing left to give.  When you destroy the wealthy and those who produce wealth, you are left with nothing a-la “Atlas Shrugged.”  Obama and the rest of the liberal elites are using class warfare to justify their increased taxation of the wealthy and middle class.  I will leave you with this short story that explains quite well what is happening.

How Taxes Work . . .(not an original work, author unknown)

Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59.

That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until one day the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers?  How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too . . . It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest?

Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

EU President claims 2009 first year of global governance

November 25, 9:38 AM
St. Louis Conservative Examiner
Andrea Simoncic

According to recent statements by the EU’s President, Herman van Rompuy, the year 2009 will mark the first year of global governance. The EU President, a former Belgian Prime Minister, mentioned this in a recent speech upon confirmation of his presidency. Said the newly confirmed EU President, “2009 is the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.” This claim has given rise to fears of a possible coup of the American government if the proposed Copenhagen Climate Treaty is signed by President Obama in December.

The climate treaty, it is theorized, would mandate that wealthier nations redistribute up to 2% of their annual gross domestic product to third-world countries in reparation for so-called “climate debt.” In other words, it mandates a handout from richer nations to poorer nations, based on the spurious scientific evidence of global warming. Evidence which has recently proven to be falsified, according to the leak of information from Hadley CRU.

The foundation for these fears that U.S. Sovereignty will be usurped result from a section on governance in the treaty, beginning on page 22 of the proposal. Some believe it would create an unelected world government with direct control over all financial and trading markets, plus the direct power to intervene over the heads of elected governments in the economic and environmental affairs of the nations which sign the Treaty. It is on this basis that some fear the U.S. may lose its sovereignty if President Obama signs this treaty, and Congress ratifies it into law. Among those who warn against the treaty is British Lord Monckton, the former science advisor to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Whether or not these fears and suspicions are well-founded, however, the new EU President nonetheless has displayed a worrying presumption in regards to other nations. Certainly Americans would do well to be vigilant regarding this matter, particularly concerning the devaluation of the dollar, and China’s past urgings to accept a global currency. Yet America has not surrendered her sovereignty, despite the EU President’s implied assumptions that America, along with other nations, will indeed bow to the authority of a one world government in the future. Indeed, many recent reports have sounded the death knell for this treaty. Regardless, America must stand firm against those who would seize or coerce unrightful power; American must not and cannot cede its sovereignty to any person or entity. That means you, too, President van Rompuy.

For more information, please visit:

UN Framework for Convention for Climate Change (Most recent version of the proposal)

Obama says ’step closer’ to climate deal

All hope is lost for Copenhagen climate treaty, British officials say

APEC Concedes Copenhagen Climate Treaty Out of Reach

Instrument of Repudiation Petition Opposing Treaty of Copenhagen
+

• Congo massacre witnesses were threatened [AP]
• UN chief urges new election date for Cote d’Ivoire [China News]
• Education not Execution: Uganda’s Defilement problem [Independent]
• Did Mbeki really support, for a while at least, the Equatorial Guinea coup attempt? [The Daily Maverick]
• Israel announces plans to limit West Bank construction for 10 months [LA Times]
• Burma engagement offers false hopes [Sydney Morning Herald]
• Indonesian government may allow mining in protected forests [The Jakarta Post]
• Haiti: UN troops shoot again [World War 4 Report]
• Blood Oil [VF]

I just came over from Aldo Vidali’s Luminous Compass where I found a very rare video of John Kennedy from his days in office where he gives the system a true lambasting. I dare say Republicans must have been soiling their pants at this one and are probably regretting that it has resurfaced. Especially now!! Eva Colinger is on the prowl again this time in Nicaragua and pointing out that the U.S. is up to its old tricks again. I wonder if anyone in the White House is savy to any coup attempts down in South America? It seems to me that there is some rattling of War Drums in the air.

You might want to go over to the Luminous Compass and read the latest.

The Dangerous View Ahead

You might also want to check out these articles. They are in Spanish but not a good translator can’t handle.

EEUU manipula a sociedad civil en Nicaragua, dice experta

“No debemos de ceder espacios”

Nicaragua denuncia financiamiento de EE  UU

Chaves might want to tighten up the borders for any “Spooks”. No doubt they are already crawling around. Remember 2002!!!

Just over two months ago, the small West African nation of Guinea featured prominently in the news because of the violence that took place in a football stadium in the capital Conakry on September 28^th, causing public outrage both within Guinea and in the international community. 

One-hundred and fifty-seven people were killed and 1,200 wounded when the military used tear gas and then opened fire into an unarmed crowd of 50,000 pro-democracy and opposition demonstrators.  In addition to shooting and bayoneting people, witnesses reported that soldiers publicly and violently raped a number of women.  Others accounts suggest that the military removed bodies to cover up the number of dead.  President and Captain Moussa Dadis Camara denied direct responsibility or knowledge for the assaults, saying that his soldiers were “uncontrollable.”  

Camara was initially popular after coming into power in December 2008 through a bloodless military coup hours after the death of Lansana Conte, the former president who had ruled for more than two decades and himself came to power through a coup in 1984.  Some Guineans liked Camara at the start because he came down hard on the drug-trafficking industry and made promises of democracy, including a pledge to hold a presidential election on January 31, 2010 in which he could not run.  

But as time has passed, Camara has held onto his power and started to backtrack on his promises.  Various statements he made led to rumors that he was planning to run in the January elections.  People started to speak out against his military rule and protest against him running for president.  This dissent is what motivated the rally on September 28^th which so tragically ended.    

As usual, shock stories of violence tend to dominate the news from Africa, and then the media goes quiet on the longer-term outcomes or deeper analysis.  Unfortunately, Camara is still in power, although the international community has put significant pressure on him.  In response to the attacks, France, Guinea’s former colonial power, suspended military ties with the country, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) instituted an arms embargo on Guinea in mid-October, and the African Union has called for Camara to step down and is threatening sanctions. 

Moreover, The United Nations Commission of Inquiry, with the support of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, has begun an investigation into the massacre.  The three-person commission is led by an Algerian judge and former foreign minister, Mohamed Bedjaoui, and its other two members are a former minister of Burundi and the senior lawyer of Mauritius.  Their goal is to get to the bottom of what happened on September 28^th while still ensuring protection for witnesses.  The commission expects to be in Guinea for no more than 10 days. 

By: TimesOnline

World Agenda: BJP in the frame

for Babri mosque massacre

On a slow news day, PAD, or rather New Politics Party, NPP, came up with this new conspiracy theory, allegedly hatched in Dubai.

It’s not their first one, there were probably hundreds of them, but only one made a real splash – the infamous Finland Declaration. Will this new discovery of Thaksin’s secret plans deserve the same attention? I doubt so.

Read the article for yourself.

The only part of it that provoked my interest is the plan to block Bangkok roads with taxi cabs. They tried it in April, and it generally worked, but they haven’t thought this through then -they were just trying to create chaos. If they use the cabs to prevent the authorities from reaching large areas of the city, there will be power vacuum, and it could be exploited to undermine Abhisit and force a coup.

However, it won’t work if they are not prepared to go all the way – there’s little point in creating “independent red state” in a couple of Bangkok districts for a couple of days, they’d be cleared out eventually.

If they can pull off the coup, it is very likely Dubai (or rather “PAD Declaration” at this point) would come really true, with “national government”, freeze on Thaksin court cases and eventual pardons. The reason would be: “We gave Abhisit a chance at reconciliation, he failed, now we have to try some other way”.

It is very likely to work, as the current troublemakers, Thaksin and his reds, will be placated and Democrats will be declared incompetent yet still invited in the government. I don’t think Democrats would agree to this, but, faced with the new reality, public opinion might go against them.

Coup makers can also manage fallout with PAD if they keep Thaksin away from public eye for the first few weeks. Thaksin never thought much of PAD’s ability to mobilize people, he probably isn’t concerned with that possibility now, he just wants to make a deal with (alleged) PAD backers. A coup would give him a big bargaining card and “elites” would be forced to accept his demands.

There will be huge backlash on the net and internationally the country’s image will suffer, there will be a price to pay, but it won’t come out of Thaksin’s pocket, so it’s not a real problem.

Basic strategy – force a coup against Abhisit and negotiate new terms with new powers, even if they are not explicitly pro-Thaksin. It’s worth a try as his situation can’t get any worse anyway.

Apart from red demonstrations protected by taxis, assassination of scores of anti-Thaksin leaders, also mentioned in the declaration, can also force a coup against helpless Abhisit. That would be just a terror campaign, and it might force the “elites” to back down just like they were forced to react to PAD takeover of the airports a year ago.

When I read myself here it looks like Abhisit is Thaksin’s main obstacle, and in a way, I think, it is. Prem can be sidestepped and isolated and his allies would eventually accept the new reality, but it’s Abhisit’s control of the military and police that needs to be overcome first.

But enough with wild plans. While reds themselves might believe in their power to cause all these changes, the rest of the country would have none of it unless reds come up with really big numbers. A million in Bangkok would certainly suffice but anywhere less than a hundred thousand is simply not enough to get noticed.

Sustained terror campaign is probably impossible to carry out in Thailand at all. Bangkok is not deep South, people talk and see and report things here.

Latest addition – some say that Thaksin twitted that Nov 30-Dec 3 dates are not the best dates for the rally. I can’t confirm this one way or another. His latest tweet was a while ago and it seems he was just talking to some of his fans.

فديو, فيديو كليب انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه الرومانسىافلام لك تحميل من

شاهد فديو, فيديو كليب انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى – سعد الصغير 2009
تحمل وتنزيل فديو, فيديو كليب سعد الصغير من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى انا بيه ورومانسى

لمشاهدة وتحميل الفديو, فيديو كليب …

شاهد فديو, فيديو كليب اغنية سعد الصغير انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى
يو, فيديو كليب سعد الصغير من فلم, فيلم البية الرومانسى – انا بيه ورومانسى

اضغط هنا لمشاهدة الكليب

|اغانى|فديو, فيديو كليب|مقطع|هدف|مسلسل|اعلان|فلم, فيلم|برنامج|حلقة|شاهد|مشاهدة|اون لاين|سرعة عالية |بدون
تحميل|اغانى|عربى|اجنبى|MP3, mp3, ام بي ثري|البوم|
2009|سينجل|نغمات|تنزيل|نزل|شعبي|راب|حمل|موسيقى|MP3, mp3, ام بي ثري

|افراح|فديو, فيديو كليب|راديو||اون لاين|بدون تحميل|مجانا|بدون اشتراك|2010

فديو, فيديو كليب انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه الرومانسىافلام لك تحميل من

شاهد فديو, فيديو كليب انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى – سعد الصغير 2009
تحمل وتنزيل فديو, فيديو كليب سعد الصغير من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى انا بيه ورومانسى

لمشاهدة وتحميل الفديو, فيديو كليب …

شاهد فديو, فيديو كليب اغنية سعد الصغير انا بيه ورومانسى من فلم, فيلم البيه رومانسى
يو, فيديو كليب سعد الصغير من فلم, فيلم البية الرومانسى – انا بيه ورومانسى

اضغط هنا لمشاهدة الكليب

|اغانى|فديو, فيديو كليب|مقطع|هدف|مسلسل|اعلان|فلم, فيلم|برنامج|حلقة|شاهد|مشاهدة|اون لاين|سرعة عالية |بدون
تحميل|اغانى|عربى|اجنبى|MP3, mp3, ام بي ثري|البوم|
2009|سينجل|نغمات|تنزيل|نزل|شعبي|راب|حمل|موسيقى|MP3, mp3, ام بي ثري

|افراح|فديو, فيديو كليب|راديو||اون لاين|بدون تحميل|مجانا|بدون اشتراك|2010

موالى كل الجديد فى عالم النت

Obama Allies Want New Tax To Pay For Cost Of Protecting Afghan Opium Fields, Bribing Taliban

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 20, 2009

Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a “war on terror” that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn’t even exist.

Celente forecasts next 9/11 will be in 2010

Supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra plan to rally in Bangkok late this month to force the government to step down. The “Red Shirts” will gather at the Democracy Monument Saturday, November 28 until December 2 when celebrations begin for the King’s birthday.

The group intend to march to various state buildings to pressure PM Abhisit to resign. The Red Shirts claim the Prime Minister’s government is illegitimate as it came to power after controversial court rulings forced Thaksin’s allies from office.

Last week, Thaksin caused a diplomatic uproar by visiting Cambodia, and anti-Thaksin protesters held their own demonstration.

The PM is said to be awaiting intelligence reports before deciding whether or not to invoke an Internal Security Act that would place the army in charge of security for the rallies.

Fear and Loathing in Honduras: Elections Under Repression

May I Speak Freely Media
November 20, 2009

As Honduras’ Nov. 29 election day quickly approaches, the broader picture of whether the vote can truly be free and fair has so far escaped the attention of the U.S. government and much of the world’s mainstream press. While focusing on the terms of the Tegucigalpa-San José Accords, their compliance or lack thereof, and the seemingly two-dimensional Manuel Zelaya/Roberto Micheletti dispute over the country’s presidency, government and media observers alike have paid scant notice to the ongoing suppression of civil, constitutional and political rights of the dissenters, which seriously undermines any hope for an end to the political crisis, let alone an unfettered electoral process. As Bertha Oliva, director of the Committee for Relatives of the Detained-Disappeared, testified in a Nov. 5 U.S. Congressional briefing, “Dialogue under repression isn’t dialogue … nor is dialogue that doesn’t recognize human rights.”
Free and fair?

International standards of free and fair elections, set out by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 1994 and subsequently adopted by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in 2000 and the OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter in 2001, call for basic rights of political expression, movement within the country and an equal basis for campaigning of all parties. In an essay on the topic, Eric Bjornlund of Democracy International wrote, “The political environment should be free of intimidation.” On its face, these conditions don’t seem to be met in Honduras’ current political climate.

Honduran and international human rights groups, the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have expressed concerns over political repression and recognition of election results. Much of Latin America, including Brazil and Argentina, have announced they will not recognize the election results.

MISF has previously reported widespread media repression since the June 28 coup, including the September closure and seizure of assets of Radio Globo and Canal 36, two of the last independent opposition voices on air. The two stations have since resumed broadcasting, albeit with limited transmission capacity. Just today Reuters reported that Canal 36 news programming was interfered and prempted by cowboy movies.

MISF Associate Producer Oscar Estrada said that the stations are severely self-censoring, fearing a repeat of military reprisals. One Radio Globo journalist, Luis Galdámez, has persisted in criticizing the de facto government on his daily program “Behind the Truth,” and, according to Amnesty International, has been receiving death threats. On Nov. 19 it was reported that Canal 36’s broadcast signal was being interfered with and news programming replaced with cowboy movies.

The Honduran government on Oct. 5 issued a decree authorizing the National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel) to shut down any medium that calls for abstaining from the elections or that “incites hatred,” which, according to Estrada, is widely taken as code for speaking against the state. While Conatel hasn’t yet enforced the decree, Reina Rivera, director of the Honduran NGO Center for Investigation and Promotion of Human Rights (Ciprodeh), said she expected it will in the immediate run-up to election day.

Privation of civil liberties has also been reported by MISF. A Sept. 27 emergency decree restricting free speech, assembly and movement—all critical aspects of a free electoral cycle—which de facto president Micheletti had promised to annul, wasn’t repealed until Oct. 25, a few days before the Tegucigalpa-San José Accord was reached. That the decree has largely been replaced by more focused decrees issued by individual ministries much to the same effect.

In addition to the Conatel decree, the national police have issued a resolution, a demonstrably illegal act, that any march or protest requires 24 hours’ notice and permission from the police. In practice, however, this policy has only applied to leftist and independent candidates, for whose events the police are the first—and, as a consequence, last—to show up.

Another decree, issued by the Security Ministry, classifies as terrorism any takeover of public space by the resistance and the use of loudspeakers. To date, several leftist political rallies, which by necessity use sound systems, have been charged in this manner.

The dissolution of any agreement on the return to power of the deposed Zelaya—a precondition to election participation given by the Resistance Front Against the Coup and the popular independent candidate, union leader Carlos H. Reyes—has resulted in the effective disenfranchisement of the opposition in the elections. Reyes has officially withdrawn from the race and the Front, as have 102 of the 128 Innovation and Unity Party congressional and mayoral candidates, as well as a faction of Zelaya’s (and Micheletti’s) majority Liberal Party.

Many leftist organizations and Zelaya himself consider the election hopelessly unfair, have called for its boycott and have begun a process to legally contest and postpone voting.

On Nov. 17, Attorney General Luis Alberto Rubí announced that the 530 prosecutors of the Public Ministry will be actively seeking out and cracking down on anyone who commits “electoral crimes,” such as impeding the voting process, urging people to not participate, or destroying political propaganda, all of which will be punishable with a four-year prison sentence. The practical effect of these strictures is to further stifle opposition voices by stripping them of the one recourse they had left.

The international justice organization CEJIL reported to the United Nations and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on Nov. 10 about persecution and retaliation against judges and public defenders who have expressed opposition to the coup. “The acts against these officials are an illegal restriction of their rights and an intimidation tactic to silence their voices and those of the thousands of people who oppose the regime,” said Viviana Krsticevic, executive director of CEJIL.

Honduras rights advocate and former independent slate candidate Berta Cáceres, speaking with the Chilean publication El Clarín, noted that the Electoral Tribunal has engaged the military—the same body that has been illegally arresting, beating up and even killing members of the coup opposition—to supervise the balloting. She said whoever is elected on Nov. 29 will represent a “golpista” government.

Explaining an increasingly widely held view within the country, MISF’s Estrada said, “All the parties have begun to sound like one because [the military,] under its doctrine of national security, runs the country, and will continue to run the next government.”

Ciprodeh’s Rivera said reports are already coming in of heavy militarization in certain remote areas known for being armed, and she fears armed conflict. Ulises Sarmiento, a Liberal Party candidate for deputy in Olancho province and a strong resistance advocate, was attacked Nov. 18 by at least eight men armed with heavy weaponry and grenades. Two of his security detail, Delis Noé Hernández, 27, and José Manuel Beltrán, 35, were killed in the attack.

According to both Estrada and Rivera, the election has stoked fears among Hondurans on both the right, who fear unrest in the streets and the implementation of Hugo Chavez-style populism, and the left, who fear massive, possibly armed repression, and the legitimization of the coup through the voting process.
U.S. recognition

The United States has not only not made any acknowledgement of such apparently unjust and illiberal electoral conditions, but is indicating support for the election and recognition of its outcome.

As a primary broker in the Tegucigalpa-San José Accord, the U.S. State Department initially seemed to be riding to the rescue in a last-ditch effort to reinstate Zelaya to power preceding the elections. However, when it became evident that Honduras’ Congress was not going to make a timely decision on Zelaya’s restitution and when Micheletti unilaterally formed the unity government, the United States insisted that the accord was still in force, indicating at a press conference on Nov. 6—a day after the deadline to reinstate Zelaya—that it would likely still recognize the election.

While this statement seemed to confuse many, it is clearly the official State Department position, since Thomas Shannon, assistant secretary of the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, echoed them a couple days earlier on CNN en Español, where he stated, “The future of Honduran democracy is in Hondurans’ [Congressional] hands,” answering affirmatively a question about recognizing the elections, no matter what transpires.

An end to the crisis?

Both Honduras and the United States want to see an end to the crisis, which is unlikely to come with the election. According to Estrada, “This will end one of three ways: by means of a patent campaign of terror that decapitates all the populist organizations; by way of an accord that brings about genuine constitutional reform; or, the third option, war.”

According to Estrada and Rivera, the election has stoked fears among Hondurans on both the right, who fear unrest in the streets and the implementation of Hugo Chavez-style populism, and the left, who fear massive, possibly armed repression, and the legitimization of the coup through the voting process.

For more information

“Berta Oliva (COFADEH) Gives Testimony at Congressional Briefing sponsored by Rep. Grijalva D-AZ.” Quixote Center, November 12, 2009.

Bjornlund, Eric. “Free and Fair Elections.” Democracy International.

Casasús, Mario. “Bertha Cáceres: ‘El pueblo busca estrategias para el desconocimiento de las elecciones en Honduras.‘” El Clarin, November 11, 2009.

“Con 530 fiscales perseguirán los delitos electorales: Rubi.” El Tiempo, November 17, 2009.

“Entrevista Thomas Shannon en CNN 04-Nov.” YouTube.

“Honduran channel says de facto govt blocks signal.” Reuters, November 20, 2009.

“Honduras: Honduran radio journalist fears for his life: Luis Galdámez.” Amnesty International, Novermber 16, 2009.

“IACHR concludes its 137th period of seessions.” Organization of American States, November 13, 2009.

Parks, James. “Trumka: Free Elections Not Possible Now in Honduras.” AFL-CIO Now Blog, November 16, 2009.

“Poder Judicial persigue a jueces opuestos al golpe.” VosElSoberano, November 14, 2009.

U.S. Department of State. “Daily Press Briefing.” November 6, 2009.

U.S. Department of State. “Daily Press Briefing.” November 18, 2009.

Zelaya Rosales, Manuel. “Carta Presidente Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales al Presidente Obama.” November 14, 2009.

“Zelaya to legally contest Honduras elections.” Agence France Presse, November 18, 2009.

“Honduran channel says de facto govt blocks signal.” Reuters, November 20, 2009.

May I Speak Freely Media
www.mayispeakfreely.org

Forward this e-mail to a friend.
Subscribe to the Honduras News in Review e-mail update.
Go to the HNR archive for past editions of the News in Review.
Read some history on human rights in Honduras.
Follow our Twitter updates or become a fan on our Facebook page.

Please support our reporting on human rights in Honduras! As chaos continues in Honduras after the June 28 coup, MISF Media has been in close communication with people on the ground as well as following international news on unfolding events. We are making every effort to publish our Honduras News in Review, a regular English-language digest of human rights news in Honduras—distributed monthly to over 34,000 subscribers, including government officials, policy makers, international media, academics, activists, students and others. We need your support now more than ever. At this moment, Honduras is suffering widespread rights abuses that demand our attention—but we can’t continue to provide coverage of the situation without your help. Please contribute to keep our work going!  Visit our website to MAKE A SECURE, TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION TODAY!  Thank you for your support!

About: Founded in 2001, May I Speak Freely Media (MISF) is a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to promoting social change through media. Twenty-five years after the Honduran military, with support from the United States, committed brutal human rights abuses against its citizens, MISF Media is working with human rights advocates, international NGOs and grassroots organizations to document rights abuses and justice efforts in Honduras, help victims tell their stories, raise public awareness, and prevent the repetition of past U.S. foreign policy mistakes. Offering journalism, historical records, and other educational material, www.mayispeakfreely.org serves as a resource for policy makers, rights advocates, academics, journalists, activists and the general public. MISF Media is a fiscally sponsored nonprofit project of Media Island International, Olympia, Wash.

Honduras’ interim president said Thursday he may step down temporarily to allow voters to concentrate on the upcoming presidential elections.

Roberto Micheletti said he will consult his advisers and those who have supported his government on whether he should step aside ahead of the Nov. 29 election and until at least Dec. 2, when Congress is scheduled to vote on whether to reinstate ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

Micheletti did not say who would be in charge of the government if he takes the weeklong leave of absence.

“My purpose with this measure is for the attention of all Hondurans to concentrate on the electoral process and not on the political crisis,” Micheletti said in a message broadcast on national television.

He said he would immediately return to the presidency should threats to “order and security arise.”

Micheletti was named president by Congress after Zelaya was rousted from his bed by soldiers and flown to Costa Rica on June 28.

Zelaya, who has been holed up at the Brazilian Embassy since slipping back into the country on Sept. 21, called Micheletti’s announcement “an easy maneuver … to deceive fools.”

Zelaya again warned that he would not return to the presidency if Congress votes to restore him after the elections, saying doing so would legitimize the coup.

“It’s illegal and violates the rights of the voters because it tries to hide a coup d’etat,” Zelaya said.

Both Zelaya and Micheletti signed an agreement brokered by U.S. diplomats last month. However, the two sides are now at odds over whether the pact is being fulfilled.

The accord calls for formation of a national unity government, but does not require Zelaya’s restoration to office, leaving that decision up to Congress.

Zelaya declared the pact a failure two weeks ago when Micheletti announced the formation of a unity government before any vote by Congress.

Turks and Caicos, a scarcely known group of islands in the Caribbean, had been enjoying the good life for the last 6 years. The economic windfall came from foreign resort developments and the financial banking sector known to be a tax haven.

In August 2009, the government and its autonomous constitution was over-thrown by the British. UK, purportedly having been told by a group of islanders (led by TCI Journal) that corruption existed between the government and foreign investors, conducted an investigation into these claims.

Since the UK’s take-over in August, the people of Turks and Caicos have grown mutinous over UK’s reported mismanagement of the island’s economy. Increased taxes, cuts in benefits, loss of jobs and amendments of the financial sector have caused many islanders alarm of the loss of prosperity that they once enjoyed. Many islanders claim that if UK is there to “bail them out” then why are they penalizing the people and what are they doing with the revenue.

Newly elected Peoples Democratic Movement leader (a political party in Turks and Caicos), Doug Parnell says that UK leadership in Turks and Caicos is now “akin to Cuba”, a dictatorship. The governor, Gordon Wetherell, makes all decisions solely.

Furthermore, all rights to a jury trial have been abolished by the UK as to the entire population. This has raised many eyebrows calling into question a witch hunt with a supreme decision already mapped.

When the UK took over governance of the islands in August, a newly elected Premier, Gallmo Williams, had been already elected and in office for nearly six months following the accused Premier Michael Misick’s resignation. Mr. Williams calls UK’s move, a coup.

How did these claims of wrong doing in Turks and Caicos come about? It was not an organic grass root’s effort as once reported. It is now known to have been caused by the accusations and orchestration of a web blog in the islands called TCI Journal which has been shrouded in controversy since early 2008.

TCI Journal is run by Shaun Malcolm, who the national main stream media calls a “political opportunist.” However, he is rumored to have several backers. The site is known to use fictitious letters to the editors and pseudonyms to make allegations and innuendo against the local government officials and foreign businessmen in the islands.

Some twelve months ago, TCI Journal wrote to UK parliament making claims of impropriety of then Premier, Michael Misick. However, once Misick left office under a cloud of suspicion, the accusations did not stop by TCI Journal.

It now turns out that the target of TCI Journal and Shaun Malcolm is ultimately UK’s Lord Michael Ashcroft, a major investor in Turks and Caicos.

Yesterday, TCI Journal and Shaun Malcolm wrote another letter to Parliament and Queen Elizabeth claiming to speak on behalf of “thinking citizens” of Turks and Caicos. It stated that islanders are grateful for UK’s intervention, which has islanders hopping mad. But the letter also asks Westminster the following:

“We respectfully and sincerely ask for your written assurance that Lord Ashcroft will not be influencing, directly or indirectly, decisions regarding the Turks and Caicos Islands should the Conservatives win the next election, and if you are willing to give us these assurances then we kindly ask for you to work with us now to establish tangible safeguards towards this goal.” The letter goes on with specific allegations of cronyism with Michael Misick’s government.

It is now reported that on Monday, Lord Michael Ashcroft will be required to face questions in the parliament with respect to these claims of alleged impropriety. These are allegations which Lord Michael Ashcroft flatly denies. Lord Ashcroft released a statement today stating that the accusations by Shaun Malcolm are false.

Honduran Dictatorship Is A Threat to Democracy In the Hemisphere

November 19, 2009

Ousted Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya has accused the United States of doing nothing to resolve the political crisis and restore democracy in his country, a Russian press agency  reported on Thursday.

“If the U.S. was really interested in a political solution to the crisis in Honduras, it would be enough for them to wag a disapproving finger for five minutes, and then the de facto government would have reinstated me in two hours,” RIA Novosti quoted him as saying in an interview with MVS Radio de Mexico.

He added that the U.S., which accounts for 75% of his country’s foreign trade, had enough ways to put economic pressure on Roberto Micheletti’s interim government.

Zelaya was bundled out of Honduras on June 28 by the military, acting on instructions from the Supreme Court and parliament, over efforts to seek an unconstitutional second presidential term.

He was flown to Costa Rica, and his place was taken by Micheletti, the parliamentary speaker.

The ousted president secretly returned to the country on September 21 and took refuge in the Brazilian Embassy.

Talks to end the crisis have so far failed even though the sides signed a U.S.-brokered accord, and began to form a national unity and reconciliation government. Zelaya and his supporters later quit the agreement and were not present when Micheletti formed the reconciliation government, saying that their main demand — to reinstate Zelaya ahead of national elections — was not met.

The parliament, however, will gather to vote on Zelaya’s reinstatement three days after the country holds presidential elections on November 29.

Many countries and international bodies have warned they would not recognize election results if the Honduran polls are held under the Micheletti presidency. The U.S. and Panama said last week they would recognize the election results.

Bookmark & Share

War threat between Venezuela and Colombia increases

UK Telegraph
November 15, 2009

Analysts worry that Marxist rebel groups could manipulate the troop build-up by starting a firefight, sparking a war between the two countries.

Chávez tells Venezuela to get ready for war with Colombia

Colombian president Uribe meets with U.S. president Obama

Irish Times
November 10, 2009

Despite a decade of increasingly hostile relations, Venezuelan imports of Colombian foodstuffs have ballooned, accounting for most of the $7.2 billion (€4.8 billion) in bilateral trade between the two countries last year.

A long, but excellent analysis from Arnold August.

Honduras: Consistent Positions by both Sides Elevate the
Constituent Assembly as the Solution

By Arnold August, November 17, 2009.

One side is the barely veiled alliance between Washington and Micheletti. The other side consists of the Constitutional Zelaya Government, the National Front against the Coup d’Etat and the principal former presidential candidate linked to the latter who has decided to boycott the November 29 elections. The candidate had formally taken his final position to boycott the elections once it was clear that Micheletti refused to reinstate Zelaya as the president despite the accords reached to that effect.

One can examine the position of the USA/Honduran oligarchy alliance by looking back, from the perspective of November, to the initial reaction of Washington towards the June 28 coup. It tells us a lot about the stance from that memorable but regrettable day to date. It is consistent in its essential. Initial reactions are quite telling. They set the stage for the future and provide the essence of a position which cannot be subsequently covered up by superficially changing words and actions.

On June 28, President Obama stated that he was concerned about “the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya.” He then called on “all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law.” He terminated with the appeal for “dialogue.”

On June 28, Hillary Clinton basically stated the same position. There are certain features which stand out in Washington’s stance and which continue to date:

1. Placing the de facto regime on the same footing as the forcefully expelled Zelaya.

2. For appearances sake, intermittently, stating that Zelaya is president.

3. Highlighting dialogue as a solution. This is a tactic for stalling, buying time on behalf of the coup leading up to elections to legitimize the coup.

4. Refusing to call June 28 a coup on all occasions.

However, some may argue that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the State Department did in fact from time to time call June 28 a coup. Yes, this is the case, but depending on the circumstances. We have seen above how Obama skilfully avoided calling it a coup on June 28. The next day a joint press conference with Columbia President Uribe took place.

Even though Uribe is a strong ally of the USA, his government still joined with the other South American countries at the time to denounce the coup and demand the return of President Zelaya. Colombia is a member of the Rio Group as well as UNASUR both of which together include the vast majority of South American nations. These regional bodies have taken and continue to take a strong stand against the military coup and in favour of the unconditional restoration of Zelaya. In this June 29 press conference with Uribe, Obama being aware of the audience, called June 28 a “coup” and stated that Zelaya is the “democratically elected President.”

On July 7, in Moscow, Russia which is one of the countries contributing towards pulling apart the unipolar world and being part of the new multi-polarity, Obama deemed fit to call for the restoration of Zelaya, but this time did not mention a coup.

In another set of circumstances, at a joint press conference with conservative Canadian Prime Minister Harper who more openly favors the Micheletti regime, the joint statement indicates that Obama and Harper “restated U.S. and Canadian support for the peaceful restoration of democratic and constitutional order in Honduras and called on all parties to accept the San José Accord.”

Once again, there is no mention of a coup; the name Zelaya is not even to be found anywhere. It is another indication of how the Two Track policies (the hard-line Track I as symbolized by Harper and previously by the Bush era, and Track II, adopted by Obama) exhibit no real contradiction between each other. The objective of both Tracks is the same. It is merely a question of which one of the two is considered to be more effective in reaching the goal of domination over South America.

On August 10, in Guadalajara, Mexico, the Joint Statement by North American Leaders (Obama, Harper and Calderón) resulted in another variety of phrases. In these circumstances, the joint statement mentions the coup, (they did after all meet south of the Rio Grande) but even then the name Zelaya is nowhere to be seen. In place of conveniently omitting Zelaya, we are left with the usual vague mention of accords, the restoration of democratic governance and rule of law.

Washington at times does not mention the word coup but at other times it is explicitly stated that on June 28 a coup did take place. Yes, this is true, but never a—military—coup. This is not a minor issue. I have already documented in detail how the State Department, from June 29 to early August, had avoided dealing with whether or not the US was to legally classify the coup as a military coup according to Section 7008 of the 2009 Appropriations Act, approved by the US Congress.

From August to mid-October when it had by then become a moot point, Washington continued to steer away from this point. Section 7008, bluntly entitled “Military Coups”, states:

“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available…shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such government if the President determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of assistance a democratically elected government has taken office.”

There are several points here. Firstly, if the coup was classified as a military one, according to the US legislation, any ambiguity about funds being provided to the putschists would, in principle at least, be eliminated. Secondly, once a “democratically elected government has taken office”, which is a scenario that the US is favouring through the November 29 elections, the following question is posed:

Who will have had to publicly go to the US Congress and explain that assistance to the de facto regime should be resumed after the November 29 elections, universally condemned and not recognized? President Barack Obama.

Thirdly, by circumventing the classification of the coup as being a military one, this provides both Washington and the Tegucigalpa military regime the space to manoeuvre they needed in order to declare either openly or indirectly that there is indeed a legitimate constitutional issue for which Zelaya is of course to blame; this provides much needed credibility to the very raison d’être of the de facto regime.

Fourthly, the political clout against the Micheletti regime would have been devastating if the coup was declared to be military according to Section 7008. The putschists, who were very conscious about the controversy surrounding Section 7008, would probably not have lasted as long as it did.

This eclipsing of Micheletti is something that Washington, as we have seen through the evolution of the situation, did not and does not desire. The coup perpetrators got the message loud and clear from Washington since June 29 when Section 7008 was first raised by reporters in the State Department briefings; some cosmetic remarks and actions, for the sake of appearances, against the regime did not really bother the coup perpetuators.

Yes, Washington wanted Micheletti to dialogue, but only in order to incorporate Zelaya into a new Micheletti-led government which would legitimize the elections, a trap into which Zelaya, the Front and the progressive candidate eventually all refused to fall. The US wants to maintain its SOUTHCOM military command in Honduras at its military base in Palmerola, through which Zelaya passed when he was abducted from his home and sent to Costa Rica.

THE “M” WORD

The US and their allies in the Honduran military/oligarchy underestimated the determination of the Honduran people, their quickly rising political consciousness, organization, and self-confidence. The US was not able to break the unity between the different forces composing the post-coup Honduras political landscape.

Time magazine hit the nail on the head with its article entitled: “Why Obama Won’t Use the M-Word for Honduras’ Coup.” One has to explain the following: According to the hypocritical and puritanical establishment media norms existing in the US, in order to sidestep explicitly and publicly mentioning a word which is considered to be unacceptable or grotesque, only the first letter is used.

In this case, sarcastically, it is “M” for “military” coup as opposed to a non-military coup. In this September 5 article, Time writes:
“…The Administration also sent a significant mixed signal. It didn’t use the m-word: Military. Its lawyers have determined that while Zelaya’s overthrow was a coup d’état, it was not technically a military coup….By not calling Zelaya’s ouster a military coup, it gives coup leaders the impression that what they did was merely second-or third-degree coup-mongering instead of the first-degree military kind.

When the military hauls away a democratically elected president, it’s a military coup, period, regardless of who takes power afterward. It’s a rule that needs to apply not just in Honduras, but whenever the U.S. has to take on coupsters.”

On October 30, when an accord was reached between Zelaya and Micheletti, Hillary Clinton was elated at the apparent success of Washington’s policy carried out since June 28 based on “negotiations and dialogue”. She was euphoric to the extent of jumping the gun and declaring “We’re looking forward to the elections that will be held on November 29….”

However, by November 5, due to the complete unwillingness of Micheletti to implement even the already water-downed agreement, the accord fell through. On November 6, following through on the same theme with which the State Department began on June 28, State spokesman Ian Kelly said that the both sides should return to the negotiating table to reach an agreement, blaming both Zelaya and Micheletti for the failure.

Given that Washington did not classify coup as a military one, the White House can still keep the door open to the holding of elections even if Zelaya is not returned to power. Firstly, by avoiding the M-word, Washington provides itself the luxury of cultivating the doubt hovering over the head of Zelaya’s legal/constitutional activities leading up to the coup.

This is of course aided by the US establishment media which more often than not maintains the disinformation that Zelaya was organizing a referendum on June 28 for a Constituent Assembly and the eventual possibility of running again for elections in violation of the Honduran constitution.

It has to be repeated time and again that the Fourth Bulletin Box consisted of nothing more nor less than a poll or plebiscite to ascertain whether the Honduran electorate considered the eventual election of a Constituent Assembly for a new constitution appropriate or not (something entirely legal according to the current Honduran constitution.)

In the absence of the military coup classification—avoiding the “M” word—Obama would not have to go to Congress after the elections to ask for resumption of aid and support to a government emerging out of illegitimate elections, classified as such internationally and domestically.

As the situation has evolved the President’s appearance in Congress, or even through a representative, would been a political disaster for him as the condemnation of the elections is virtually unanimous in South America. Instead, what the US and Micheletti wanted from Day 1 was to stall and to hold elections in order to legitimize the coup, presenting the Honduran people and the peoples of the world with a fait accompli.

THE NOVEMBER 29 ELECTIONS

This latest step in the US/Micheletti positioning with respect to the elections is exposed in the following November 6 State Department briefing by Department Spokesman Ian Kelly. This meeting with the press took place after Republican Congressman Jim DeMint declared that Hillary Clinton and Assistant Secretary for Latin America Thomas Shannon assured him that the US will recognize the elections whether Zelaya is returned as president or not:

“QUESTION:Anything to add on what Congressman Jim DeMint says about the recognition of the electoral results in Honduras [that] you are going to recognize the electoral results with or without Mr. Zelaya?
MR. KELLY:Well, I think we have agreed to support the electoral process. We are providing technical assistance to the elections process in Honduras. And …we’ve made this commitment to support this process because of the accord between the two parties….

QUESTION:Senator DeMint says that…he was given specific assurances from the Department that … the Administration will recognize the election as legitimate even if Zelaya has not been reinstated. Is that correct? Can I get a yes or no answer on this?

MR. KELLY:I think what we have said, what the Secretary has said, and what I’ll say –

QUESTION:Can I just get [an answer]–

MR. KELLY:– is that we support this accord which calls, first of all, for a Verification Commission, then for – and that’s been done. The next step is the formation of a government of unity and reconciliation, then a Congress vote on the restoration, and then the elections. So far, only one step has been carried out….”

By November 9, while it was already a known fact that the negotiations are over and the anti-coup forces are concentrating on what to do about the elections, Kelly disregarded the situation in Honduras. Kelly completely ignored the fact that on November 8 (before his statement below), the most important opposition presidential candidate Reyes (and Zelaya himself) called for a boycott of the elections. It was not “business as usual” as Kelly seeks to impose. He responded to a question on Honduras stating that that“they [negotiators] are still talking with a view to, first of all, the formation of this national government of unity and reconciliation, which is called for in the agreement.”

The more the situation evolves towards a non-recognition of the elections from virtually all of South America and within Honduras, the more the US pushes for the elections as a solution. This increasingly arrogant and haughty attitude was expressed on November 10 by Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of the State Department:

“MR. CROWLEY: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Craig Kelly has arrived in Tegucigalpa today to continue working with the parties and the verification commission. He’ll be there today and tomorrow, focused on trying to move the process forward towards a free and fair election and the seating of a new government in Honduras at the end of this month….

QUESTION:[At] today’s meeting of the OAS, most of the countries…say they are not going to recognize electoral results, also the Group of Rio. How do you see the way out for Zelaya?

MR. CROWLEY:Well, I don’t think we see a way out for Zelaya per se….We have over several months wanted to see the return and restoration of constitutional order. It’s not about any one person. It’s about a return of democratic processes and democratic government in Honduras….”

On November 12, several days closer to the elections, the same position is maintained. During the press briefing that day, a reporter questioned Kelly regarding reports of mass arrests, curfews, emergency media harassment and limitations, and asked “does that undermine the electoral process?” Kelly avoided the issue and instead repeated that “…we support the election process there,” while repeating that the accord should be implement by “the two parties.”

The Honduran newspaper Tiempo quoted Presient Zelaya on the November 11 visit by Assistant Secretary of State Craig Kelly to Zelaya who said that Kelly told him that “‘The United States has not changed its position, which continues to maintain the condemnation of the coup, the non-recognition of the current authorities and continues to struggle for my restitution.’”

However, the USA is not only supporting the elections but directly involved in organizing them in collaboration with the putschists whom Kelly says that the USA does not recognize; the elections are being held in defiance of Zelaya and the Hondurans who call for the non-recognition of these elections because the goal of the vote, among other objectives, is to perpetuate the non-restitution of Zelaya!

For Washington, the return of Zelaya as President was never a sine qua non for the restoration of the democratic process. One may recall that Obama and the State Department, since June 28, at times mention Zelaya and on other occasions shun the issue. This depends on the situation, the country in which the words are uttered and in the company of which they find themselves. This is a policy whose main consistent common thread (despite the verbiage) is to stall until the holding of the November 29 elections as the vehicle to maintain the status quo. Zelaya is dispensable, but the planned voting is a principle not to be abandoned under any circumstances.

From June 28 to November, the USA/Micheletti alliance follows the same consistent position: accent on negotiations and dialogue; placing both sides on the same footing (even though the coupsters have the military/political repressive power while Zelaya has been in exile and cornered as a prisoner in the Brazilian Embassy); refusing to take into account the international and domestic demand for the immediate restitution of Zelaya at key moments as is the case now; and of course stalling so that the elections can take place under any conditions in order to legitimize, in favour of the status quo, the removal of the Zelaya government and its progressive domestic and international policies.

Avoiding the M-word proved to be a cornerstone of this policy, thus providing Obama and the State Department a free hand to oxygenize the military dictatorship and keep it on life-support until November 29. After this date, Obama will not even have to appear before
international and domestic public opinion to testify in Congress in order to re-instate those aspects of support for the de facto government which would otherwise have been cut-off if the coup had been classified as a military coup according to Section 7008.

THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY

The USA/Micheletti alliance constitutes a consistent and homogeneous position. However, it is back-firing. It is not bringing victory to the USA. The anti-coup forces also have a consistent position. From Day 1, firstly the National Front against the Coup d’Etat (formed in fact the following day, June 29), secondly the Zelaya government and thirdly the political forces opposed to the coup and part of the Front commonly put forward the following most important demands:

1. The immediate restoration of President Zelaya.

2. The return of the rule of law and democratic order that existed before June 28, involving the immediate halt of repression, and the expulsion of the military and police from power.

3. The non-recognition of the November 29 elections under the conditions which do not favour freedom of expression, association, such liberties not being compatible with de facto brutal military rule.

4. The need for the election of a Constituent Assembly with the mandate to work out a new constitution in order to re-found the Honduran nation based on equality, justice, full democratic political participation, and opposition to US domination over Honduras.

Some of the tactics practiced by all the components in this anti-coup alliance varied from one period to another and from one participant to another in this coalition. However, they are proving to be only tactical differences—and not strategic principles—on how to defeat the Micheletti clique and take advantage of the international pressures, the latter being apparent or real. And so at the end of the day, all the actors complement each other and are defeating all attempts to divide the alliance representing a variety of political and social forces from many sections of the society.

Zelaya calls for a boycott of the elections. The National Front does so as well. The most important of the anti-coup presidential candidates, the popular union leader linked to the National Front, Carlos Reyes, formally announced his final decision on November 8 to boycott the elections. According even to “official” polls taken at the end of October, Reyes was favoured by 14-16% of the voters.

However, as a question of principle and in the face of the impossibility of holding free and fair elections under a pro-US military dictatorship, Reyes made an emotional appeal to anti-coup activists on November 8. Thanks to the video shown by the Rel-UITA international trade union web site we can see the movement developing under our very eyes. Reyes announced that he reached this decision after consulting with 11,000 people in different regions of which 96% said NO to the elections.

With this decision, he went on to say, we have not lost anything; it is the putschists who have lost because they have to keep their power by bayonets. The experience of his independent candidacy, he claims, shows the following: People in the neighbourhoods, teachers, workers, peasants, women and youth select and put into action their own candidates; candidates are directly nominated by the people.

Nothing positive can come out of the elections without the support of the people, declared Reyes. We have to take advantage of their weakness in order to make sure that it fails and that we take the path towards the Constituent Assembly. Putting post-coup Honduras into its historical and geo-political context, Reyes told the packed union hall that the people of Honduras are following in the steps of Bolívar, Martí and Che.

Bertha Cáceres, is a leader of the Consejo Cívico de Organizaciones Populares e Indígenas de Honduras (COPINH by its Spanish acronym – the Peoples’ and Indigenous Civic Council of Honduras). She is linked to the Independent and People’s Candidacy of Reyes. She related in a November 12 interview that:

“‘One should appreciate that these elections are taking place en in the context of the coup d’etat, and that the coup perpetrators hold real power over the different levels of the Honduran state; the restitution of President Zelaya is a situation difficult to turn around in a few days. For example, the Electoral Tribunal is organizing a delegation of international observers composed of those who have come to Honduras in order to support the coup….The army will have the jurisdiction over the Electoral Tribunal according the San Jose Agreement; the people are outraged to see that the same military forces who are responsible for having assassinated and tortured, are the very ones who are going to “supervise” democracy and the election in this country. These are the reasons for us to not participate in this farce; it is out of respect for the Honduran people, we are not going to validate the coup by the de facto regime with another similar government. What is going to emerge out of the electoral process will be a coup government, that is the continuation of the de facto regime, but with another face; it will take power on January 27, 2010. It will put forward the neo liberal program; we have not lost the perspective of what we are going to follow in the political arena, dignifying politics, as Father Romero has taught us, until we arrive at the National Constituent Assembly and the return to constitutional order….’”

Later on the same day (November 12), about 110 candidates for mayor and 55 for deputies announced their withdrawal from the November 29 elections in protest against the military coup. On November 13 and 14, further reports indicate a wave of mass social organizations taking a stand in favour of boycotting the elections.

On November 14, President Zelaya renounced any possibility of being reinstated in his position as president that will have the effect of glossing over the coup d’etat. He also declared that he does not recognize the November 29 elections because the putschists have already decided who will be president as well as the mayors and deputies.

On November 15, the Resistance reaffirmed that they will not vote. In a press release issued that day, the Front declared that “the date of the elections is approaching, and so the people and the resistance will not turn up at the polls.”

It seems to be quite obvious that the people of Honduras are leaving behind pre-coup Honduras by developing serious discussion on how to concretely oppose the fraudulent elections and thus head towards the next step, the Constituent Assembly.

For example, Ricardo Arturo Salgado, Honduran sociologist and writer working with rural workers and fishermen and an active member of the National Front, recalls that the Honduran people were originally hoping that the November 29 elections would open the door towards a Constituent Assembly. He forcefully raises the need to be fully organized in order to defeat the fraudulent elections, suggesting a general strike which overlaps the date of the vote.

On the one hand, there is the consistent, inflexible position of the Washington/Micheletti alliance, refusing to make any concessions. It is increasingly isolating itself in Honduras, and internationally especially in South America. On the other hand, all the anti-coup forces follow flexible tactics while sticking to strategic principles and collaborate with each other based on mutual comprehension and respect. In this way, they avoid any division which would have been a disaster and closed the door to a victory in the future.

The dividing line between the two opposing forces and their respective position is: Who is to wield political power in Honduras? Is it the wealthy few and their US-backers, or the people? Who will write the history of Honduras: the US or the people themselves by proposing their own candidates and then electing their own Constituent Assembly with the mandate to consult with the people in the course of elaborating a new Constitution?

Washington completely ignores the decision to actively boycott the elections taken by the main presidential candidate, Reyes, who reflects the unrelenting massive and courageous movement of the vast majority of Honduran people against the coup and in favour of a new Honduras. This is an indication of how the ruling circles in the USA manipulate elections (whether in the USA or in other countries) in their favour.

The peoples in South America writing their own constitutions carry important lessons for today and tomorrow. Cuba started in 1868 (in 1869 with the Guáimaro Constitution) and this culminated in the 1976 Constitution, since amended in consultation with the people. More recently, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador have carried out elections of Constituent Assemblies and the drafting of new modern Constitutions based on the concrete conditions in their respective countries.

Others are looking to follow a similar path. It is in fact this movement that was the target of the coup in Honduras. This coup also consisted of a warning against all of South America. While the people of Honduras fight in the streets, villages and the countryside, Washington further takes their policy against the relatively new movement in South America. The target of this policy coming from the north is the people wielding political power and being masters of their own destiny.

The Obama Administration continued on from his predecessor, further planned and finally executed the establishment of the seven military bases in Colombia. The opposition to these military bases in the heart of South America and to the coup in Honduras are virtually merging into one wave of indignation sweeping all of South America. Winning, maintaining and extending people’s political power and participatory democracy in each country according to their own respective conditions is the only answer.