RSSIn the hours and days following the election, the illegally-appointed Supreme Electoral Tribunal committed fraud by announcing a voter turnout that was indisputably more than 12 percentage points higher than its own officially-published numbers. The doctored higher figure was cited repeatedly by Lobo, Secretary of State Clinton, and other friendly faces to legitimize the disputed ballot. Many Honduran and foreign observers argue that later international support for the Lobo Administration will eventually ensure the invalidation of Zelaya’s most important reforms. This support will guarantee long-term repression and a growing degree of tight-fisted control in the country, as well as endangering democratic institutions and social justice reforms throughout the hemisphere as the result of an echo effect.
Though State Department officials insist that the Honduras election process was transparent, in fact, no international observers were present to confirm the tally because—as announced by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on September 23rd—the conditions for a free and fair election were not present. A scathing 147-page report released Wednesday, January 20th, by the Inter-American Human Rights Commission corroborates this, citing a litany of well-documented human rights abuses, including numerous political assassinations committed prior to, and following the election. The report describes a militarized environment in which dissonant or critical opinions have been officially prohibited in “an egregious, arbitrary, unnecessary and disproportionate restriction, in violation of international law, of the right of every Honduran to express himself or herself freely, and to receive information from a plurality and diversity of sources.”
While no official international observers were on the ground election day, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) sent “monitors” to oversee the Honduran election that the OAS and Carter Center had refused to legitimize with their presence. Both the NDI and IRI are funded by the U.S. Congress through a highly conservative Reagan-era umbrella organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The archly conservative IRI has supported efforts implicated in the ousting of democratically-elected presidents in Haiti and Venezuela in recent years. The day of the election, the NDI had its monitors caught on tape refusing to discuss police violence, which they had witnessed outside the polls in Honduras’ industrial city of San Pedro Sula.
The parallels between Honduras and Haiti are striking; each country has been saddled by a history of undeserved debt—an enduring legacy of colonialism—and in each country’s case (after over a century of often U.S.-installed dictatorships) an elected president who was responsibly engaged with bringing social justice to its citizens, was evicted from office. The vehicle for this was a military coup at least tacitly backed by Washington. By aiding the foes of Manual Zelaya in Honduras and Haiti’s Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Washington indirectly or directly ousted from power those who had been prepared to protect public resources from the pressing demands of the IMF for privatization, and shrink the public sector infrastructure of both countries. The skewed development of these countries, as well as guidance from private entities and the U.S. government, subjected the national interests of Haiti and Honduras to be hostage to the view of these outsiders. This is a situation that could turn the smallest windstorm into a hurricane, when it comes to a natural disaster’s impacts on the average resident and outside political manipulations.
Although President Obama initially joined the international community in condemning the Honduran coup and calling for the restoration of democratic order as a precondition for recognition of elections in that country, Washington in fact has been aggressively lobbying other Latin American presidents to recognize the incoming Lobo government. Despite the de facto government’s refusal to reinstate Zelaya or follow the time line and process laid out by the Guaymuras Accords, the Obama Administration has signaled its intention to recognize a “unity” government representing only the coup leaders, and to support the Honduran Congress’ decision to give amnesty to those responsible for the military coup and the thousands of human rights abuses that followed. In a recent interview with COHA, independent Honduran journalist and filmmaker Oscar Estrada expressed some of the opposition’s apprehensions about Lobo:
“With the entrance on the scene of Porfirio Lobo Sosa, there begins a new phase in the project of domination begun by the June 28th coup d’état. [Lobo’s] recent reconciliation agreement is nothing more than an attempt to whitewash the coup and demobilize the popular resistance.”
Lobo, the man who speaks today of dialogue and peace, has offered safe conduct for Mel Zelaya to leave the country. But, just days ago, he proposed a neoliberal “national plan” for the next 28 years. By means of his own legislative bloc, he seeks to approve an amnesty that principally favors the country’s violators of human rights, and plans to govern with the backing and protection of the paramilitary structures that have terrorized the people during the past six months.
Honduran opponents of the coup, who since June 28th have organized almost daily protest actions, including numerous marches numbering in the hundreds of thousands, similarly plan to protest Lobo’s inauguration.
The Obama Administration has so profoundly bungled the situation in Honduras that it has destroyed hope among many of its citizens as well as Latin Americans that a ‘new era’ of relations with the United States is in the making. Add to that the multiplication of U.S. military bases in Colombia, the mistakes being made in response to the tragedy in Haiti, and the missed opportunities in Cuba, and one cannot claim with any degree of optimism that Obama is off to a robust start to implement an energized and enlightened new Latin American policy.
COHA Senior Research Fellow Adrienne Pine, Ph.D, also serves an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at American University. Dr. Pine recently authored the book Working Hard, Drinking Hard: On Violence and Survival in Honduras (University of California Press).
This is pretty much typical stuff written by academics with no sense of reality. To believe that everything would have been all right had Zelaya just been allowed to carry on with his illegal project is nothing short of ignorant. Articles like this are just loaded with catch-phrases and left-wing rhetoric from useful idiots tucked away in comfortable offices with their own misguided senses of political development and an almost messianic worship of any leftist president that deludes his constituency with false promises. This is not analysis, not useful information. It's just drivel from a self-serving academic.
It's easy to shoot the messenger! huh
That's exactly and solely what he did, Hector. My assumption is Alfredo can't present facts to refute Ms. Pine's article because they don't exist. What else can I assume?
Dr. Pine is supposed to drop whatever she is up to at this hour and answer some critique by someone who doesn't even leave a full name and/or link — and, much as he claims Dr. Pine's observations are, based in rhetoric?
I don't agree with Ms. Pine's so called observations because this article is not factual… To say that the Supreme Electoral Tribunal was 'illegally elected' is simply not true. The tribunal was actually put in place over a year earlier, while Zelaya was still president. To say that the Michelleti government did not follow the timeline is worse than untrue, but simply lack of ability in reading the Guaymuras document, the same mistake Zelaya's reps made. She also fails to mention that Zelaya also failed to uphold his end of the bargain with regards to this treaty. The "dozens" of candidates that did not participate are from the ultra-leftist party, the UD. And to say that no other country but US recognized the elections is also incorrect. Five other countries accepted the results of the elections. And to say that only the military has abused of civil and human rights demonstrates her lack of objectivity and knowledge of what was going on in the country. As a Honduran, I can assure you that nothing is worse than walking on the street and realizing that a mob with molotov bombs are coming your way, destroying everything in their path. And let's not forget the many, publicized by the resistance might I add, threats that they would not let people vote, by any means necessary. Both sides were just as guilty of terrorism.
Personally, I don't like president-elect Lobo. I know he is corrupt and he has time and again demonstrated his lack of intelligence, and his love of money taken by exploiting public offices. I was really hoping this crisis would give the smaller parties a chance to be elected (PINU being my favorite). However this did not happen, which is very sad.
And before I get accused, as many do in these comment boxes, of being a right-wing nut, being wealthy, or any other ridiculous accusation, I would like to clear that up. I lean left, and the only reason I speak English is b/c my parents, through hard work and at sometimes through loans put me through a private bilingual school. The reason I don't support Zelaya is because to think of him as someone who was fighting for the people is pretty ridiculous, almost as much as saying Pepe is… He was a populist demagogue that also proved to be a drain on the country's finances, and was on his way to centralize power within the executive, something that does not follow democracy and has had too many negative repercussions in the past.
And…Carmen hits the nail on the head. Ms. Pine appears to view Zelaya as some sort of savior who would protect his people from the 'windstorms of privatization'. Apparently Ms. Pine has never set foot in a Honduran public hospital, or been left in the dark after the public utility company cuts power for several days to a neighborhood. The point is, Zelaya was as self-interested as any other politician, even forging an alliance with the richest family in Honduras, the Rosenthals. This isn't change or even progress, it's the same cronyism that has plagued that country for decades. Zelaya never gave a good reason as to why he went outside the legal boundaries in attempting to strong-arm his way around legal election practices. We can argue till the cows come home as to whether he should've been exiled or tried in the country, but either way, his presidency would have been terminated, and rightfully so. Can you imagine President Bush running for a third term? Would anyone with a sane mind have tolerated it? Of course not. Zelaya's referendum did not meet even the most minimal standards of transparency: It was carried out and tallied by the president's office, and the results would have led to a complete rewriting of the constitution. Something that serious merits a more professional approach than what Zelaya was doing.
Dr. Pine, I am just an anonymous congressional staffer with an interest in Latin America. I sat in on briefings from NDI and the president himself told us the election was free and fair. You calling him a liar or did you just not do your research? I could write more, but Carmen and Alfredo said it all. Just thought I'd add one more inconsistency with your crapy biased article. Shame on you.
PS Richard Grabman: Since we must give our emails to make a post, Dr. Pine CAN email us. I encourage her to do so.
Although the NDI may claim that they were free and fair elections, the fact remains that the lack of all of the major independent election observeration teams makes it hard to verify and raises legitimate concerns, especially with the various reports of violence that this article cites. However, what would really interest me is finding out just how many Hondurans boycotted the election. If this number is significant, then this would provide more substantial evidence that the elections were
Sorry Got cut off. If this number is significant, then this would provide more substantial evidence that the elections were not the will of the people. If few did boycott, then the elections and the current situation can be seen as a viable escape from the crisis that Honduras faced at the end of last year.
it sounds like some one has been drinking Bolivarian Kool-Aid. This articles sounds like something that Hugo Chavez would say on Alo Presidente
A coup d`etat?..
The Supreme Court of Honduras acted acording their Constitution.
Now, independent countries have to ask permission to the United States first, in order to apply their own law?
Have you even bother to read Honduras Constitution? Please read the articles 4, 205 num 15, 239, 319 num 2, 373 and 374.
(you can download the Constitution at http://www.honduras.net/honduras_constitution.html
To define a Coup D´Etat, first, you have to define if the method used to remove the President from his position was contemplated in the National Constitution or not.
I think is utterly embarrasing that an U.S. Senator didn´t have a legal team to study this case before make any statement.
In the case of Honduras, almost the entire planet was wrong, because they analized the facts from the optic of "what this appears" instead of judging the facts with the Honduras Law .
I, in a very respecfully way, say to you THAT YOU WERE WRONG.
You confused THE WAY THAT IS WAS REMOVED FROM THE PRESIDENCY WITH THE WAY THAT HE WAS REMOVED FROM HIS HOUSE AND THE COUNTRY.
In Honduras, The Constitution clearly establish a procedure to remove the President. This procedure is basically an Accusation from the Congress and a Resolution from The Supreme Court to decide the matter. (See article 319, number 2, Honduras Constitution)
Neither the United States or ANY COUNTRY has any right to study Supreme Court Resolutions of an Sovereing and Independent Country.
The Resolutions made under their autority is something that all countries MUST RESPECT.
One thing is the way of how Zelaya was REMOVED AS A PRESIDENT, that was entirelly legal (By a Supreme Court Resolution after a Congress Accusation), and another thing is the way that he was removed from his house and country, which was ILLEGAL !!!
The main point here is that the legal process that ends with the removal of Zelaya was in fact LEGAL !!..
And the illegality of the enforcement doesn´t create a nullity of the legal procedure itself !!
The soldiers entered in Zelaya´s House AFTER HE WAS REMOVED !!
In Latin America it is common that the President could be remove by a Political Trial, when the Constitucion establish this particular procedure. But if we remove a President by a Political Trial and then we use the army to send him out of the Country, the Political Trial remains legal, regardless of if the execution was correct or not.
Obviouly, it is not popular of "politically correct" to support this because more than half of Latin America is under Chavez influence and you don´t want to drop more fuel into the fire.
But the Right thing always remains RIGHT, and wrong actions ALWAYS REMAIN WRONG.