Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. appears to soften support for Honduras' Zelaya

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Guero Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:19 AM
Original message
U.S. appears to soften support for Honduras' Zelaya
Source: Reuters

Reuters
U.S. appears to soften support for Honduras' Zelaya
Wed Aug 5, 2009 9:10pm EDT

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. policy on Honduras' political crisis is not aimed at supporting any particular individual, the State Department said in a new letter that implied softening support for ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

The letter to Republican Senator Richard Lugar contained criticism of Zelaya, saying the left-leaning former leader had taken provocative actions before his removal by the army.

It also indicated severe U.S. economic sanctions were not being considered against the de facto government of Roberto Micheletti, installed after the June 28 military coup.

Zelaya's ouster has led foreign governments and multinational lenders to freeze some aid programs to the impoverished country and spurred protests at home. Demonstrations turned violent again on Wednesday.

"Our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual. Rather, it is based on finding a resolution that best serves the Honduran people and their democratic aspirations," Richard Verma, assistant secretary for legislative affairs, said in the letter.

"We have rejected calls for crippling economic sanctions and made clear that all states should seek to facilitate a solution without calls for violence and with respect for the principle of nonintervention," he said. The letter was dated Tuesday and obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5746J72...



As military violence increases against pro-democracy demonstrators in Honduras, the Obama administration is now back-peddaling to appease US corporate interests and the Republican Party.

The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to the coup in Honduras as it begins to project military strength in South America by way of Colombia. THIS IS CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. This issue will be moot by late January, 2010
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guero Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. No, it won't be over by 01/2010 - whatever that means?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes it will. Zelaya's term will be over and the newly elected President will take office then
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. yeah, it can't come soon enough for Honduras n/t
s
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Bacchus39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. they better have an election n/t
s
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. What will the solution be after January?
Zelaya's term will be over so he will no longer be President. Who will be President then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Why...Zelaya's party will most likely remain in power, as it is today
Also bear in mind he was removed from office by their supreme court who ordered him arrested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
28. Kidnapping and deposing sitting presidents is not legal in Honduras.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #28
57. Their supreme court and national assembly endorsed his removal from office
The only undisputed illegal act was expelling him from the country
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #57
66. after he was removed from office
his removal was illegal, soldiers can't remove a president from office and he never violated the constitution. He was conducting a public opinion poll not trying to change the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. The highest judicial authority in Honduras said he did and the National Assembly agreed
Both dominated by his political party. Not sure who would have standing to overrule that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #68
78. practicing for Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. Why would the supreme court and legislature want to rule on Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. practicing coups
Why not oust Obama as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Non Sequiter, Zelaya was removed by the court, not the army
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Wrong. The army came to his house and kidnapped him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. After the court removed him from office and issued an arrest warrant
What was clearly illegal was the deportation.

Some are arguing that the court had no authority to remove him from office, however there is no higher authority on Honduran law than their Supreme Court. Where does on go to appeal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Pretty much. Hopefully the new president will get the arrest warrant rescinded,but Zelaya is never
going to be president again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
76. not for the hondurenos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
5. Welcome to DU. Good post. Just ignore the corporate fascist glee club.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
8. The ideal fascist 'election'!
The elected president's home shot up by the military, dragged out of his bed at gunpoint, flown out of the country...
Junta appoints a president...
Martial law...
Leftist or neutral TV/radio stations surrounded with troops, shut down, reporters of all kinds roughed up, arrested, deported...
Leftists can't go out after dark and sometimes during the day, at the whim of the military...
Over a thousand political prisoners rounded up, their fates unknown, all leftists...
Ten dead, as a lesson to others...
Some tortured leftists' bodies dumped where they can be found--Fascist Politics 101...
Home invasions, leftists dragged out, arrested...
Tires shot out of busloads of people going to leftist marches and protests, people dragged out, detained, made to walk home...
Military twice open fires with live ammunition on peaceful protestors, several get bullets through the head...
Junta purges government agencies of anyone who supports the elected president...
Community activists, union leaders, priest advocates of the poor, political candidates--in hiding for fear of fascist death squads...
Junta controlling all levers of government...

Then, yeah, let people 'vote.' Ha-ha.

-------------------------------------

It's interesting that DUers who help trumpet the fascist disinformation campaign against other elected leftist leaders--notably President Chavez in Venezuela--appear to believe that elections under martial law are just fine. Who cares if leftists have trouble mounting political campaigns under these conditions? Who cares if voters are afraid? Who cares if the poor majority, already handicapped--not just by martial law, but by millions of US taxpayer dollars being poured into rightwing groups in Honduras, through John McCain's US taxpayer-funded "International Republican Institute," and other USAID-NED budgets, as well as covert budgets, and private money--can't be heard, can't afford to campaign, are afraid to leave their houses?

Strange creatures, "Blue Dogs."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guero Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Blue dogs? We used to call them Dixiecrats.
Unfortunately not all left the Democratic Party. These flea bitten mangy muts are doing their best to block the road to building a more progressive social-democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
38. Some of them on this very thread, in fact.
Useless douchebags, the lot of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
67. The election will be the legitimization of the military coup n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #67
82. 'Cept it wasn't a military coup. He was removed from office by the Honduran Supreme Court
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #82
87. Sooo wrong! On July 3 the Miami Herald published the interview
with Honduran "army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they circumvented laws when they did it."

"We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us."

Go to http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1125872.html for the complete story.

Somebody owes us an apology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. That is correct, it was a crime to deport him. It does not say it was a crime to have arrested him
after the Supreme Court removed him from office
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. Professor, you did not read the article very well. It says that
"army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they circumvented laws when they did it."

So the ARMY made the decision, not the Supreme Court AND they circumvented the law when they did that. Taking him to Costa Rica was just icing on the cake.

Oy vey!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. It is not wise to disect words on what is clearly a translation at some point
Multiple reports support what I posted in terms of the court removing him from office as the seminal event. Even the Maxists and the OAS have agreed with the time line of events. They sharply disagree with the interpretations taken and the decisions made by the Honduran Supreme Court. Everyone agrees at this point that it was illegal to exile him.

As the article cited in the OP said, there also there seems to be a change in the administration's positions. Similar one here: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334537... also indicating that State Dept is also backing off.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #92
93. You need to explain why Zelaya should have been ousted
in the first place.

I suggest you go to Jules Siegel's article in the Huffington Post on July 13 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jules-siegel/honduras-sup... >.

Siegel is fluent in Spanish and has reviewed key documents. He is critial of Zelaya's decisions, but he does not believe the removal was Constitutional and provides the following support for this conclusion:

1) Zelaya proposed an encuesta or survey - "Encuesta de Opinin Pblica Convocatoria Asamblea Nacional Consituyente (Survey of Public Opinion Convoking a National Constitutional Convention) - not a binding referendum. It would have been carried out the "National Institute of Statistics, not a legally authorized electoral body, using a survey form, not a ballot."

2)The survey was a protected activity under the Honduran Constitution - even after the Congress passed a law 5 DAYS BEFORE THE SURVEY - to require that referendums be conducted no earlier than 180 days before a regular election.

Siegel writes, "President Zelaya had ample power to carry out the survey under the Citizen Participation Law of 2006. Five days before the survey was to be put before the people, Congress passed a law forbidding referendums and plebiscites (another electoral process) within 180 days of an election. The law did not mention encuestas. Furthermore, the constitution specifically protects freedom of research.

According to Siegel, "Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress had the power to remove him from office ..." However, IF HE HAD actually violate a law - ie., promote a legally binding referendum to extend his stay in office - Siegel says it "appears he could have been detained and tried for criminal conduct by a special tribunal made up of Supreme Court justices." An interesting side note is that this Constitution midwifed by a military dictatorship only provides immunity from prosecution for one crime - "acts of war committed by military personnel."

3) The claim that Zelaya was trying to extend his presidency, therefore violating the constitution is not supported by fact or reason. The SURVEY would have been conducted at the SAME TIME AS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. There is NO WAY he could have extended his term.

However, IF the survey had been conducted and won wide support AND if Congress convened a Constitutional Convention AND if said Convention proposed changes to allow more than 1 term for a president AND if the change was finally adopted AND if Zelaya ran again for office ...... Well, I tried to make this as simple as possible and hope you get the drift.

BTW, the current version of the Honduran constitution was written in 1982 just BEFORE Honduras returned to civilian rule. And this constitution has been modified 165 times since 1982. Progressive Hondurans have supported modifying elements of the Constitution for years, as they believed it had undemocratic provisions. Zelaya was advancing their interests with the survey.

Siegel also reported that Micheletti did try to change the reelection clauses of the Constitution in October 1982. "On Oct. 24, 1982 various congressmen lead by Roberto Micheletti himself tried to introduce legislation calling for a constitutional convention and called for the suspension of articles 373, 374 and 374 which forbid modifying clauses concerning reelection, changing the national borders and other issues that are "set in stone."

You may be gleeful that the Obama administration has now abandoned promoting Zelaya's return to office, but this isn't he ed of the story.

The take home message is that US foreign policy continues to promote the interests of the corporate elite and US hegemony. Democracy as an issue is pure window dressing for consumption in the home market, because very few believe it outside the US.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. I will defer to the highest authority on Honduran law, their Supreme Court who did the ousting
There are lots of columns on all sides, but their Supreme cout, made up of a majority of his party members, and their National Assembly, also with a plurality of his party both agreed he had.

I am not gleeful at the current administration change so much as annoyed at those who have not read the timeline and background to realize this was not your basic military takeover. Clearly both sides have dirty hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. Nice cop-out. It's obvious you're motivated by ideology, not
reason. You have no idea what they can or can't do legally, but are willing to believe on the basis of MSM articles - blind faith - that it was legitimate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. No copout, I am willing to accept the ruiling of highest judicial authority in the matter, that is
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 02:35 PM by ProgressiveProfessor
the height of reason. Here is a quote from one of those MSM articles...

The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional referendum, and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law.

Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelayas own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelayas own party. Thus, Mr. Zelayas arrest was at the instigation of Hondurans constitutional and civilian authoritiesnot the military.

The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelayas Liberal Party.

Independent government and religious leaders and institutionsincluding the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman, four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Hondurass Catholic Cardinalall agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.

The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Courts unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longeras a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concernedpresident of Honduras.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. So, continue to believe the lies being spread that have turned
the coup into simple "legalese". The Honduran Supreme Court said so, therefore it must be true. Guess you must be the only "progressive" who believes Bush won the 2000 election called by the US Supreme Court - and split neatly across party lines.

The real issues have to do with the minor changes Zelaya had begun to make, like the minimum wage, which rankled the inbred and anti-democraic oligarchy. I've been to Honduras and I've seen the urban and rural poverty that gives people no hope.

The Institute for Policy Studies has a nice background on the issue at http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/hypocrisy_and_the_hondur... . Here's a section that highlights he inequality in that society. This is what explains the recent action against Zelaya.

"The mind-numbing discussion of "legally authorized behavior" has omitted reference to conditions in Honduras. In 2006, the United Nations Development Program described Honduras as suffering "profound social inequalities, with very high levels of poverty, and with an insufficient economic growth where the population had a relative dissatisfaction with the results of democracy." The report claimed 15% of rural Hondurans have a 40 years or less life expectancy and 20.4% of the adult population remain illiterate. The UNDP concluded that "the time for change is now. " (p. 5, 21).

A 2003 report showed the richest 10 percent still netted 50 times more than the poorest 10th. 86.3% of the Honduran rural population lived in poverty; 71.3% of urban dwellers qualified as poverty-stricken. 67.2% of the children under the age of 5 were malnourished. (J. MacDonald, Expresin de la pobreza en la ciudad, Reunin Grupo de Expertos sobre Pobreza Urbana en America Latina y el Caribe, 27-28 de Enero 2003, p 4-5.)

In 2006, Manuel Zelaya won the presidency. He made the UNDP report a central part of his agenda for change. His social program, not an ambiguous Constitutional interpretation, became the root of his "issue" with the governing oligarchy a dozen families who control economics and social, cultural and political institutions. They also dominate the media. A 2008 State Department Human Rights Report acknowledged: "A small number of powerful business magnates with intersecting commercial, political, and family ties owned most of the country's news media. Powerful magnates strongly influenced the news agenda and thereby elections and political decisions." (U.S. Department of State, 2008 Human Rights Report: Honduras. February 25, 2009.)

Until Zelaya tried to bring real democracy into the governing equation, Honduras' elite with U.S. banking and corporate backing had found a seemingly perfect recipe: people vote but dont change anything. Congress and Courts belong to the educated (rich and powerful) who also control the military in cooperation with the U.S. government. Washington provided aid; the School of the Americas trains Honduran officers in proper conduct torturing enemies and making coups. "Since the 1980s, the Honduran army breathes through the noses of its US advisers." (ALAI AMLATINA, July 10, 2009)"

Change you can believe in. A lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. So having lost the point that it is was not a coup, you want to move on to social issues
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #98
101. Don't you wish! You haven't provided any concrete information
to back your coup-PR mediated 'opinions'.

You refuse to comment on Siegel's reading of the Honduran Constitution and the planned survey.

You refuse to consider the comments by the Army lawyer regarding the illegality of removing Zelaya from office.

And then you deny the relevance of the social context of the coup.

You're a 'professor'? I haven't seen this much intellectual honesty and curiosity since Dubya was in office.

Bueno suerte!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. Sigel has no standing, and the arguments he makes have been better done by others
*THE* authority is their Supreme Court, just like ours. If foreign commentators do not like a SCOTUS decision, how much of voice do they get and why should any American care?

The social situation in all of Latin America is important, but it does not change the time lines.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. Really? You continue to post comments wihout any supporting
evidence. Not terribly professorial, 'professor'.

Please provide a reference that refutes Siegel's argument or the specific points he raised, because I would love to read it. I won't hold my breath because I'm certain you can't do it.

BTW, you conveniently refused to answer the question regarding the SCOUTS decision that gave the 2000 election to Bush. Please explain your support for that one. It's been a very dull day and I could use a good laugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlphaCentauri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #82
100. Here is the Honduran Constitution


ARTICULO 2.- La Soberana corresponde al Pueblo del cual emanan todos los Poderes del Estado que se ejercen por representacin.

La soberana del Pueblo podr tambin ejercerse de manera directa, a travs del Plebiscito y el Referendo.

La suplantacin de la Soberana Popular y la usurpacin de los poderes constituidos se tipifican como delitos de Traicin a la Patria. La responsabilidad en estos casos es imprescriptible y podr ser deducida de oficio o a peticin de cualquier ciudadano.
* Modificado por Decreto 295/1993.

ARTICULO 3.- Nadie debe obediencia a un gobierno usurpador ni a quienes asuman funciones o empleos pblicos por la fuerza de las armas o usando medios o procedimientos que quebranten o desconozcan lo que esta Constitucin y las leyes establecen. Los actos verificados por tales autoridades son nulos. el pueblo tiene derecho a recurrir a la insurreccin en defensa del orden constitucional.

ARTICULO 4.- La forma de gobierno es republicana, democrtica y representativa. Se ejerce por tres poderes: Legislativo, Ejecutivo y Judicial, complementarios e independientes y sin relaciones de subordinacin.

La alternabilidad en el ejercicio de la Presidencia de la Repblica es obligatoria.

La infraccin de esta norma constituye delito de traicin a la Patria.


ARTICULO 5.- El gobierno debe sustentarse en el principio de la democracia participativa del cual se deriva la integracin nacional, que implica participacin de todos los sectores polticos en la administracin pblica, a fin de asegurar y fortalecer el progreso de Honduras basado en la estabilidad poltica y en la conciliacin nacional.

A efecto de fortalecer y hacer funcionar la democracia participativa se instituyen como mecanismos de consulta a los ciudadanos el referndum y el plebiscito para asuntos de importancia fundamental en la vida nacional.

Una ley especial aprobada por dos terceras partes de la totalidad de los diputados del Congreso Nacional, determinar los procedimientos, requisitos y dems aspectos necesarios para el ejercicio de las consultas populares. El referndum se convocar sobre una Ley Ordinaria o una norma constitucional o su reforma aprobadas para su ratificacin o desaprobacin por la ciudadana.

El plebiscito se convocar solicitando de los ciudadanos un pronunciamiento sobre aspectos constitucionales, legislativos o administrativos, sobre los cuales los Poderes Constituidos no han tomado ninguna decisin previa.

Por iniciativa de por los menos diez (10) Diputados del Congreso Nacional, del Presidente de la Repblica en resolucin del Consejo de Secretarios de Estado o del seis por ciento (6%) de los ciudadanos, inscritos en el Censo Nacional Electoral, habilitados para ejercer el sufragio, mediante sus firmas y huellas dactilares debidamente comprobadas por el Tribuna Supremo Electoral, el Congreso Nacional conocer y discutir dichas peticiones, y si las aprobara con el voto afirmativo de las dos terceras partes de la totalidad de sus miembros; aprobar un Decreto que determinar los extremos de la consulta, ordenando al Tribunal Supremo Electoral, convocar, organizar y dirigir las consultas a los ciudadanos sealadas en los prrafos anteriores.

El ejercicio del sufragio en las consultas ciudadanas es obligatoria. No ser objeto de referendum o plebiscito los proyectos orientados a reformar el Artculo 374 de esta Constitucin.

Asimismo no podrn utilizarse las referidas consultas para asuntos relacionados con cuestiones tributarias, crdito pblico, amnistas, moneda nacional, presupuestos, tratados y convenciones internacionales y conquistas sociales.

Corresponde al Tribunal Supremo Electoral, informar en un plazo no mayor a diez (10) das al Congreso Nacionial los resultados de dichas consultas. El resultado de las consultas ciudadanas ser de onbligatorio cumplimiento:

a) Si participan por lo menos el cincuenta y uno por ciento (51%) de los ciudadanos inscritos en el Censo Nacional Electoral al momento de practicarse la consulta; y,

b) Si el voto afirmativo logra la mayora de votos vlidos.

Si el resultado de la votacin no es afirmativo, la consulta sobre los mismos temas no podr realizarse en el siguiente perodo de Gobierno de la Repblica. El Congreso Nacional ordenar la puesta en vigencia de las normas que resulten como consecuencia de la consulta mediante procedimiento constitucional de vigencia de la ley. No procede el veto presidencial en los casos de consulta por medio de referndum o plebiscito. En consecuencia, el Presidente de la Repblica ordenar la promulgacin de las normas aprobadas.

* Modificado por Decreto 242/2003 y Ratificado por Decreto 177/2004

http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #100
102. Yes, google is a very nice search engine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeriousEbony Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
14. The unaddressed illegal actions by Zelaya against their constitution is an issue
If they could resolve that problem then more support for Zelaya would be addressed. It's hard to show support
for someone that has violated their very own laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. "Violated their very own laws"--according to whom? This rightwing junta?
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 11:03 AM by Peace Patriot
Here's the entire resolution Zelaya proposed for an advisory vote of the people:

"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?"

http://www.borev.net/2009/06/national_news_outlets_brin...

It would not even have had the force of law--just an opinion poll, really, on whether or not Hondurans want reform. Latin Americans do this frequently--rewrite their Constitutions. Hundreds of new constitutions discussed in constituent assemblies, voted on by the people, over the last century, and several recently (notably in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador). It is not an unusual process in Latin America, and it is perfectly legal under the current Honduran Constitution.

The Honduran junta is lying that this "violated their very own laws." They have claimed that Zelaya's intention was to lift the term limit on the president through this constituent assembly process, but, a) the vote he proposed says nothing about that, b) he denies that intention, and c) constituent assemblies take a long time--several years at least--and involve many people and many issues--he would be long out of office before any such issue would have come up for discussion and hammering out in the constituent assembly.

Trying to lift the term limit on the president would have been a violation of the current Constitution, but he did not do that. That provision of the Constitution was written as the result of military juntas in Honduras during the Reagan reign of terror in Central America. It was supposedly a caution against juntas ("strongmen," military dictators) seizing power and not letting go. It is probably outmoded (no term limit on the president is not inherently bad--our own FDR* ran for and won four terms in office, and many democratic heads of government do not have term limits), but, in any case, Zelaya did not propose this, and they shot up his house, and dragged him out of bed at gunpoint, and put him on a plane with blackened windows to another country, and declared martial law, and are now terrorizing the country, because of their presumption of Zelaya's intention??!!

They are lying! This is a "talking point" cocked up in some rightwing 'think tank' in Washington DC--probably John McCain's US taxpayer funded "International Republican Institute" which has poured $43 million of your money and my money into rightwing groups in Honduras!

--------------------------

*(Our own Founders opposed term limits as anti-democratic--the people should be able to vote for whomever they want in office--and we had no term limit on the president until the 1950s, when the Republicans rammed it through in order to prevent any "New Deal" from ever happening here again, and in order to begin to dismantle FDR's "New Deal" which they have made considerable progress in doing. The 2-term limit on the president was an anti-FDR measure. The rich have money and power. The poor have time--it takes time to undo the untoward power of the rich, and to create an egalitarian, progressive society. And when the poor majority is able to elect a leader who actually represents their interests, they will keep electing him, to serve the interests of the majority. That's what term limits are designed to defeat--the will of the majority.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeriousEbony Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Tell it to their Supreme Court. They have the final say
People must follow the rule of law otherwise you have chaos. Zalaya was found guilty by their
Supreme Court. We have to follow the law here and they should be no different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. "Zelaya was found guilty by their Supreme Court"???
When was the trial? What was his defense? Who was his lawyer?

The Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant. Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? You get arrested, and, if you're rich enough, you make bail, hire an attorney and defend yourself against whatever charges have been made against you. You have that right. The arresting authority has to prove your guilt in a fair trial. When was Zelaya's trial?

They shot up his house, dragged him from his bed at gunpoint and put him on a plane with darkened windows to another country (all with the US military--a large presence in Honduras, that works closely with the Honduran military-- remaining perfectly silent, by the way), and declared martial law.

What does this tell us about the legitimacy of the charges against Zelaya?

He has twice tried to return to Honduras, where the junta says they will arrest him. The junta put military tanks on the airport runway, to prevent him from landing. They then lined a land route he tried to take back into the country, with military troops and vehicles. He had to turn back to prevent violence against his supporters. But there he was. He stepped into the country. Why didn't they arrest him and whisk him away in helicopter to "face the charges" against him in a court of law?

The answer: 1) The charges are bogus and they know it, and 2) This is a power struggle within the Honduran oligarchy, between the entrenched rich (the junta) and an advocate of the poor majority (President Zelaya--once a member of the oligarchy). If the junta had any interest in "the rule of law," they would be following the "rule of law." They would have arrested him, tried him and convicted him, in as fair a trial as they are capable of. But "the rule of law" is not on their agenda. Martial law is--keeping illegitimate control of the country, against the interests of the poor majority.

One more important point: Since when can the democratically elected president of a country be arrested (let alone rousted out of bed at gunpoint and flown out of the country!)? We have a "balance of power" situation, here. The president first has to be impeached by a representative body of the people--a national assembly or congress. He cannot be summarily arrested or jailed by another branch of government. In this country, anyway, the Supreme Court cannot issue an arrest warrant against the President. Nor can Congress. The executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are equal powers. We've seen great transgressions against that "balance of power" under the Bush Junta, going the other way--the executive abusing its powers in many ways, including Bush writing his own laws with "executive signing statements" (--the Constitution gives that right exclusively to Congress). We've also seen the Supreme Court abuse its power as to state election law (Florida 2000). (That, too, is a Congressional power--they are the sole ultimate power on settling election disputes in national elections.)

In a democracy, the president IS subject to the laws of the land (in case we may have forgotten that), but the procedure for holding him accountable must respect the Constitutional "balance of powers" and follow the law. The president cannot be arrested (nor can members of Congress or the Supreme Court). They must first be impeached, tried, convicted and removed from office. Then they might be criminally liable. This is an essential protection of "the rule of law" based on centuries of experience in Europe and England, of one power in the government (say, the king) punishing the other (say, parliament) with arbitrary arrest, torture, disempowerment and even death. I don't know the specifics of "balance of power" provisions in Honduras' Constitution (and I do know that that Constitution was heavily influenced by Reagan's henchmen--some of whom are now deeply complicit in this junta--John Negoponte, for instance), but the "balance of powers" is a general tenet of democracy, and, if it is missing from Honduras' Constitution, then it does, indeed, desperately need revision. If what the Honduran junta did was legal--issue an arrest warrant for the President, and have the army arrest him--then something is very wrong with the Honduran Constitution. And the way they did it--at gunpoint--and then declaring martial law, certainly points to their illegality. I think it is very likely that they are the ones who have violated their own Constitution!

And, typical of the rightwing, they project their own crimes onto others! And hire Washington lobbyists and rightwing 'think tanks' to lie, lie, lie and lie some more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
59. They also removed him from office...you are confusing the US constitution with theirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #59
71. When was the impeachment trial?
You say he was "removed from office," implying that his removal was somehow proper. I ask again, when was the impeachment trial? What evidence was presented? What was his defense? Who was his lawyer?

There was no impeachment trial, or trial of any kind. He was removed by fiat, and they cocked up these charges against him after he was dragged from his bed at gunpoint and "removed" from the country, as well as from the presidency. And if the Honduran Constitution permits the Supreme Court and the military to "remove" the elected president by force, without even a nod at due process, it really does very much need to be rewritten, don't you think? Point to Zelaya.

Then--then--after the president had been kidnapped (not to mention terrorized--his house shot up, a gun at his head; I think his wife said he was beaten; flown in a plane with blackened windows to an unknown destination)--and the military had declared martial law and shut down the media, then they held a vote in Congress (a vote from which about 20 dissenters were banned), 'electing' the junta president. These procedures were outrageously unfair not only to Zelaya, but also to the people who elected him, and they grossly violated any reasonable concept of democracy and the rule of law. That is why the entire world condemned them--the OAS, the EU, the UN, every trade group in Latin America, and virtually every country on earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. Supreme Court of Honduras removed him from office and issued a warrant for his arrest
A majority of the court is from his party. Impeachment trial is a US thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #72
106. Another unsupported claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. They keep waving that "from his own party" like terror-stricken natives waving crucifixes
at truly scary vampires.

It doesn't seem to get them the respect they crave.



Former ambassador to Honduras, "Death Squad John" Negroponte, and Nosferatu.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. They are the same! A stake would be a great accessory for John.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. Zelaya was ousted by a military coup.
I don't care much for Zelaya, but what the military did was wrong, and just about every international organization in the world can see that. Why can't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeriousEbony Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. I see it the way our government does
I also see too many South American leaders trying to become president for life and using populist
mayhem to achieve that goal. Populism can be good, but when it is at the expense of better economical
sense it needs diplomatic reasoning. For instance, what Chavez is doing will result in a money and brain
Exodus just like Cuba, and leave those that remain in squalor...except for the leaders and henchmen
who will live in luxury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #29
46. You're hilarious. The only "mayhem" happening in this case
is the reactivated death squads, suppression of the populace and media censorship in Honduras.

Venezuela is doing just fine and your right wing talking points are well known here, not to mention, stale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #29
52. Broad-brush posts like this are quite silly.
As anyone following the situation in Honduras can tell you, due to the scheduling of the vote there was simply no chance of Zelaya becoming "president for life" or any other such nonsense, as his term would have ended before anything decided by the referendum came into effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #29
53. I'll bet you wish John Bolton was still our UN ambassador
and that General Pinochet was a great man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
80. Ready for a DU meetup in Honduras?
Might shatter your ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
88. Yes, and the military violated the law. Why is it so difficult to
understand that kidnapping a president and forcing him into exile was ILLEGAL!

I don't understand how a 'Democrat' can believe this complies with the rule of law. This is what happens in authoritarian countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. One more thing: If the junta had a case against Zelaya, why didn't they bring it?
Actions speak louder than words--as the saying goes. The oligarchs who kidnapped Zelaya at gunpoint have long had control of the national assembly, the courts and the military--a telling situation to begin with. Only the president, in this power structure, was advocating for the poor majority, and implementing measures such as raising the minimum wage. If they had any kind of case against Zelaya--in this fascist-heavy system--why didn't they put him on trial?

My guess: They know they are unrepresentative. They know they are oppressing the poor majority. They know that their time of greed and over-weaning power is over. And they know that they might not have gotten away with a kangaroo trial--the only kind of trial in which they could have gotten a conviction against Zelaya on their trumped up, Washington DC rightwing 'think tank'-written charges.

So they kidnapped him and threw him out of the country, and declared martial law, and hired Washington lobbyists to lie for them!

----------------------

Well, two other things: Thomas Jefferson urged us to rewrite the Constitution every twenty years or so--to go through the whole revolutionary process of the people discussing and re-writing the fundamental laws of the land frequently, to refresh democracy and dislodge any entrenched, oligarchic power. Do the people of a country not have the right to do this? Is this not the most fundamental right of all? That is what Zelaya proposed that they do--re-think the laws of the land, shake up the oligarchic establishment, and achieve a better democracy. And he proposed it under provisions of the existing Constitution. (No proper Constitution can be written in stone. It must be amendable. And Honduras' Constitution is.) A Constitution is the document by which "the consent of the governed" is obtained. It authorizes the people elected by the majority to act in the interests of the people. The people therefore have a right to SAY what they consent to. For instance, if they say--via constituent assemblies, or a national plebiscite--that they don't want a term limit on the president (or other offices), they have the right to make that rule, over and above any existing law. And if they want the president and not the national assembly to appoint justices, they have the right to make that rule--in a democratic process of constituent assemblies or votes. And if they want to eliminate, say, the Electoral College (a big issue here), or eliminate the Senate and have only the more democratic representation of the House for writing other laws, we and the Hondurans have that right. We, the People. It is an inherent right in a democracy. No one can take that right away, except by force--which is what the Honduran junta has done. Under great pressure, they may consent to Zelaya's return, to finish the few months left in his term, but they are adamant about preventing reform. That is their main issue--keeping their entrenched power. And they have used force--martial law, repression, murders--to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. so, murder isn't against their laws? kidnapping isn't? military coups aren't?
Interesting things to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. You don't seriously believe there is anyone here stupid enough
to buy into that, do you?

lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
32. you won't last long
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #32
48. Again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
49. Zelaya violating the Constitution is as much a RW myth as Obama being born in Kenya, or Australia
and you are here repeating this tiresome old shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #49
60. OK, the Venezuelan Supreme Court found he violated their constitution and removed him from office
Does that feel better now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carla Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
17. Obama is a liar.
He is the custodian of the same old shitty foreign policy that has victimized Latin America for centuries. Change? If this is change, then I am done with politics for good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ro1942 Donating Member (701 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. thanks
my thoughts exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. I wouldn't go that far ("Obama is a liar")--not yet anyway.
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 12:51 PM by Peace Patriot
I still think that Obama has good intentions, but I think that, either he made some very questionable compromises and deals, so as not to be Diebolded in the election (for instance, giving Clinton a free hand in Latin America*), OR, he is in a profound power struggle with Bushwhack moles in the Pentagon, the State Department, the CIA and other entities (--not to mention known operatives like McCain, who is thickly involved with the Honduran junta). Or, possibly, both things are at work.

*Although Clinton has a very bad record, indeed, on Latin America, she may be trying to implement Obama's foreign policy (not her own)--a stated Obama policy of peace, respect and cooperation in Latin America--and that policy, and her efforts to implement it, are being sabotaged by the Bushwhacks at every turn. I don't think the situation is clear enough yet, to know for sure. She's done some very bad things, thus far--for instance, keeping that Bushwhack fascist pig Brownfield as ambassador to Colombia, and retaining the last-minute Bushwhack ambassador appointments in Central America. These are bad, bad dudes--complicit in the Honduran junta (and likely planning more). Most shocking of all, she is being advised by John "death squad" Negroponte! And there is more: She (or the Pentagon?) is negotiating SEVEN more U.S. military bases in Colombia--whose government and military have one of the worst human rights records on earth, and--as far as I know--she (they?) are continuing the Bushwhack reconstitution of the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean. These things have all of Latin America alarmed at U.S. intentions.

She, without question, serves the interests of war profiteers and global corporate predators. But is she serving Obama--aside from war profiteer/corporate interests-- in her present position? And is his policy of peace, respect and cooperation sincere?

I don't know the answers to these questions. They are difficult answers to obtain in our Byzantine, 'Alice in Wonderland' empire.

One other thing we must consider: That Obama has been set up to be blamed for certain things--last September's Financial 9/11, and the planned economic meltdown; out of control oil prices or shortages (as the Dark Lords did against Jimmy Carter); another violent 9/11 (always possible, if all else fails). And if Obama doesn't go along with Oil War II-South America (in lieu of the nuking of Iran, nixed by the saner elements of the military and by Russia and China), they may "get" him with any of these things--not to mention with the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines (owned and controlled by far rightwing corporations). He may not have the power to implement a decent policy in Latin America, if that is what he sincerely intends.

We risk being manipulated tools of our Corporate Rulers by blaming Obama for our failures, as a people, to tend to our own democracy. He can't do it alone. What you think, or what I think, is immaterial to the powers-that-be as long as we have no power to reform our government. You can be for Obama. You can be against Obama. It doesn't matter. They can still Diebold him out of office--with whatever false narrative they want to invent. What's to stop them? The media? The courts? Congress? Only we can stop them--first of all by restoring transparency to our voting system. I DO think Obama was elected--in fact by a much bigger majority than the far rightwing voting machine corporations or the corpo/fascist media reported. But I can't prove he was elected; nor can he. That's the situation. He was vetted and approved--whatever his good intentions may be. And he can be tossed out--in a far easier and sneakier way than they tossed Zelaya out. So I really do think that we have to judge him accordingly--within the severe limits of our almost-dead democracy. He is either a hypocrite or heavily hamstrung--and, at the moment, I'm favoring the more charitable interpretation. He made deals to get the power to do whatever good he could do. Those deals have him tied down like Gulliver in Lilliput. AND the Bushwhacks (Clinton included?) are working overtime to destroy him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. The person that so many of us worked our butts off for and contributed money to is a "liar?"
I don't think so. Where and how specifically did he lie in relation to Honduras? "Change we can believe in" doesn't necessarily mean that absolutely everything will change. A lot of things such as health care are in the process of being changed, but perhaps in his best judgment President Obama feels that the course of action that his administration is taking over Honduras is the most prudent one at this time. Foreign policy can be very complicated, and in the world of diplomacy sometimes it is necessary to take nuanced actions rather than direct actions in order to accomplish a greater good in the long run.

I really do believe that the Obama Administration does plan to change US policy toward Latin America. But it's complicated and it can't happen overnight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
39. Yes. Yes, he is. He's broken a number of promises; by default, that makes him a liar.
Did I mention that I don't support liars? Because I really, really, REALLY hate liars -- especially those who allege to be on my side.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
22. The U.S. gubmint is controlled by its CORP and MIC "class"
It is supporting their financial and strategic interests in the region and are up to their noses in this coup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Give me a break.
There is zero evidence of any US involvement in this coup. The US, along with OAS and many other international organizations has condemned the coup. Nobody has recognized the new "government" of Honduras, including the US. But please feel free to continue making shit up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Read a little history.
Then check out whose interests are being represented by whom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. You don't have any, do you? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. Sure, I do.
I DO KNOW the history of the U.S. MIC in Latin America. I HAVE READ Smedley Butler's writing. I DID hear first person accounts from those who fled El Salvador. And WHENEVER I want to SPOT THE LIE, I follow the money trail. And you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. You don't have any evidence, do you?
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 03:24 PM by Cessna Invesco Palin
Ev-i-dence? Can you grasp the meaning of this word?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. It's your obligation to inform yourself, as others must, and do. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. It's not up to me to prove other posters' assertions.
And I'm gonna guess that you don't have a single shred of evidence either, ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. 'Scuse me Missa Boss Man...
I mussa spoke out of turn. Ev-i-dence? Not sho' i knows how to pernounce it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Classy. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. I know!
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #40
69. But have no evidence for this specific clusterfuck. FAIL.
Edited on Fri Aug-07-09 08:24 AM by Odin2005
Take a logic class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #69
79. Odin, stop being silly and willfully IG'NANT! Bitte...
See Judi Lynn's post #73 and dial it down a notch before you reply. :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
51. US ambassador Hugo Llorens, a Cuban exile, knew of the coup weeks in advance
OAS and EU have recalled their ambassadors from Honduras. The former Pedro Panista Hugo Llorens is still in Honduras, rubbing elbows with the School of Americas trained Honduran military and with the elites. Llorens was appointed by Bush. Why did Obama keep this POS neocon as ambassador?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. Do you have any proof that Llorens knew about the coup in advance?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. He said so himself
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 07:52 PM by IndianaGreen
and this was posted in DU at the time.

You can google it yourself, or do DU search in LBN or Latin America forum. A lot of the sources were the press either in Latin America, or El Pais in Spain, which had reporters on the ground in Honduras, and independent media such as Narco News.

Honduras: "They knew and they helped a little"

By Juan Gelman. Translated by Scott Campbell.
Axis of Logic
(Spanish) Desde Abajo. (English) Axis of Logic
Monday, Jul 20, 2009


The White House knew for months that a coup was being prepared in Honduras, even though now State Department spokespersons feign a surprised innocence. The U.S. ambassador in Tegucigalpa, Hugo Llorens, knew it very well: on September 12, 2008, he arrived in the Central American country and, nine days later, the current coupist general Romeo Vsquez declared on the radio station HRN that they had sought to overthrow the government of president Manuel Zelaya Rosales (9/12/08). He added: We are a serious and respectful institution, which is why we respect Mr. President as our Commander-in-Chief and we subordinate ourselves as dictated by law. Just like Pinochet before rising against Salvador Allende. Any resemblance is just the work of reality.

On June 2 of this year, Hillary Clinton went to Honduras to participate in a meeting of the Organization of American States. She spoke with Zelaya and shared with him her discomfort with the referendum that the leader planned to hold at the same time as the next presidential elections. U.S. officials indicated that they didnt believe that the plebiscite was constitutional (The New York Times, 6/30/09). Six days before the coup, the Honduran paper La Prensa reported that Ambassador Llorens had met with influential politicians and military chiefs in order to find a solution to the crisis caused by the referendum (6/22/09). The solution they found is obvious.

Its difficult to assume that the military leaders of Honduras, armed by the Pentagon and educated at the School of the Americas, where many Latin American dictators were trained, would have made a move without the approval of their mentors. Aside from that, the coupists did not hide the reasons for their actions: Zelaya was getting too close to the communism of Chvez, the Venezuelan most-hated by the White House: in July 2008, under his mandate, Honduras joined the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), the new axis of evil in Latin America. Too much, right?

Too much, yes, because Honduras is strategic territory for the Pentagon, which from its base in Soto Cano, where it stations troops from the U.S. air force and infantry, doesnt only dominate Central America: this bona fide enclave is fundamental in the U.S. militarys scheme for a region rich in natural resources. Although he never touched the interests of foreign corporations or the local owners of economic power, Zelaya constituted a danger of destabilization. Its fitting to mention that the referendum about holding a Constituent Assembly that could have permitted the reelection of Zelaya was non-binding. No one was bothered in Washington by the constitutional reform in Colombia that allowed for the re-election of Alvaro Uribe, the great ally of the U.S., which was not even a plebiscite. Its that one thing is one thing and another is another.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56370.sht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. There is no quote in that article of Llorens saying that he knew about the coup in advance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. The Honduran military is completely dependent on us.
They would not have made a move to jeopardize that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. Most sources were in the Spanish press, and were posted and translated in DU
Here is one example in which the Christian Democrat Presidential candidate Felcito vila said that Llorens was aware of the coup plans:

http://www.elheraldo.hn/Ediciones/2009/08/03/Noticias/L...

and also this:

Llorens estuvo muy al tanto de la situacin poltica hondurea. Incluso intervino en las negociaciones para elegir a las nuevas autoridades de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, segn lo denunciado por el comisionado de Derechos Humanos, Ramn Custodio.

which loosely translates as:

Llorens was very much abreast of the Honduran political situation. He even took part in the negotiations to pick the new authorities of the Supreme Court of Justice (IG: which collaborated in the coup), according to charges leveled by the Commissioner of Human rights, Ramn Custodio.


Like I said, you can do a DU search on the coup in LBN or Latin American forum, lots of stuff in the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Don't expect some people to do their own work! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. +1 Exactly! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
36. Truly sad, repellent. Here's something just published on this:"Honduran Coup: The U.S. Connection"
Edited on Thu Aug-06-09 03:12 PM by Judi Lynn
Honduran Coup: The U.S. Connection
Conn Hallinan | August 6, 2009

Editor: Jen Doak

Foreign Policy In Focus

While the Obama administration was careful to distance itself from the recent coup in Honduras condemning the expulsion of President Manuel Zelaya to Costa Rica, revoking Honduran officials' visas, and shutting off aid that doesn't mean influential Americans aren't involved, and that both sides of the aisle don't have some explaining to do.

The story most U.S. readers are getting about the coup is that Zelaya an ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was deposed because he tried to change the constitution to keep himself in power.

That story is a massive distortion of the facts. All Zelaya was trying to do is to put a non-binding referendum on the ballot calling for a constitutional convention, a move that trade unions, indigenous groups, and social activist organizations had long been lobbying for. The current constitution was written by the Honduran military in 1982, and the one-term limit allows the brass-hats to dominate the politics of the country. Since the convention would have been held in November, the same month as the upcoming presidential elections, there was no way Zelaya could have remained in office in any case. The most he could have done was to run four years from now.

And while Zelaya is indeed friendly with Chavez, he is at best a liberal reformer whose major accomplishment was raising the minimum wage. "What Zelaya has done has been little reforms," Rafael Alegria, a leader of Via Campesina, told the Mexican daily La Jornada. "He isn't a socialist or a revolutionary, but these reforms, which didn't harm the oligarchy at all, have been enough for them to attack him furiously."

One of those "little reforms" was aimed at ensuring public control of the Honduran telecommunications industry, which may well have been the trip-wire that triggered the coup.

The first hint that something was afoot was a suit brought by Venezuelan lawyer Robert Carmona-Borjas claiming that Zelaya was part of a bribery scheme involving the state-run telecommunication company Hondutel.

Carmona-Borjas has a rap-sheet that dates back to the April 2002 coup against Chavez. He drew up the notorious "Carmona decrees," a series of draconian laws aimed at suspending the Venezuelan constitution and suppressing any resistance to the coup. As Chavez supporters poured into the streets and the plot unraveled, Carmona-Borjas fled to Washington, DC. He took a post at George Washington University and brought Iran-Contra plotters Otto Reich and Elliott Abrams to teach his class on "Political Management in Latin America." He also became vice-president of the right-wing Arcadia Foundation, which lobbies for free-market policies. Weeks before the June 28 Honduran coup, Carmona-Borjas barnstormed the country accusing Zelaya of collaborating with narco-traffickers.

Carmona-Borjas' colleague, Reich, a Cuban American with ties to right-wing factions all over Latin America and former assistant secretary of State for hemispheric affairs under George W. Bush, has been accused by the Honduran Black Fraternal Organization of "undeniable involvement" in the coup.

This is hardly surprising. Reich was nailed by a 1987 congressional investigation for using public funds to engage in propaganda during the Reagan administration's war on Nicaragua. He is also a fierce advocate for Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, both implicated in the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1973 that killed all 73 on board.

Reich is also a ferocious critic of Zelaya. In a recent piece in the Weekly Standard, he urged the Obama administration not to support "strongman" Zelaya because it "would put the United States clearly in the same camp as Cuba's Castro brothers, Venezuela's Chavez, and other regional delinquents."

One of the charges that Reich levels at Zelaya is that the Honduran president is supposedly involved with bribes paid out by the state-run telecommunications company Hondutel. Zelaya is threatening to file a defamation suit over the accusation.

Reich's charges against Hondutel are hardly happenstance, as he is a former AT&T lobbyist and served as Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) Latin American advisor during the senator's 2008 presidential campaign. McCain has deep ties with telecom giants AT&T, MCI, and Qualcomm and, according to Nikolas Kozloff, author of Hugo Chavez: Oil, Politics and the Challenge of the United States, "has acted to protect and look out for the political interests of the telecoms on Capitol Hill."

More:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6329



Ronald Reagan's Iran/Contra propagandist, Otto Reich



Venezuelan coup architect, and Reich protege, Robert Carmona-Borjas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
34. Honduras` freedom of speech under attack: UN
Honduras` freedom of speech under attack: UN
Posted: 2009/08/06
From: MNN

UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Franck La Rue told Radio Globo that the interim government in the country was ``a dictatorial government, a de facto government which is closing the spaces of the democracy.``

TEGUCIGALPA, Aug. 4 (Xinhua) -- Honduras' interim government was accused by the UN on Tuesday of limiting freedom of speech in order to silence opposition.

UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Franck La Rue told Radio Globo that the interim government in the country was "a dictatorial government, a de facto government which is closing the spaces of the democracy."

Radio Globo is one of the biggest critics of the interim government, which has accused it of rebellion and threatened to cancel its transmission.

According to La Rue, "the important thing is to have different opinions" and he condemned the possible closing of the radio station.

The interim government recently closed TV channel 36, another of its strong critics.

"This is aggression against the media," said La Rue, who arrived in Honduras on Saturday to investigate freedom of speech in the country.

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=621416
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
35. Honduras cracks down on student protests
Latest Update: Thursday6/8/2009August, 2009, 10:23 PM Doha Time
Honduras cracks down on student protests
AFP/Tegucigalpa

Police fired teargas and water cannon at some 3,000 students who amassed in the Honduran capital on Wednesday to protest against the ousting of President Manuel Zelaya last June.

Heavily-protected riot police beat back demonstrators who blocked one of the citys main thoroughfares in front of the National Autonomous University, fulfilling a a pledge to clampdown on protests that have convulsed the Central American since June 28.

Then, Zelaya was bundled out of the country in a military-backed coup, prompting international outrage and a domestic crisis that shows few signs of abating.
On Wednesday his supporters chanted pro-Zelaya slogans and hurled rocks at banks of riot police, leaving the street strewn with detritus, including the husk of a burnt-out vehicle.

Police used water cannon to disperse the protesters, who sought refuge on the university campus, where they were pursued and beaten with batons.
The universitys rector Julieta Castellanos intervened in an attempt to calm both sides, but she too was beaten to the floor.

Elsewhere in the capital, another crowd gathered in front of the Supreme Court - which had sanctioned the move against Zelaya - demanding that coup leaders get out.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
37. Chump change we can believe in.
Not voting for this guy again. Probably not voting at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #37
64. presidents come and presidents go....
....but the corporate shadow government is always in control....beyond our reach....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
50. Bishop says wealthy elite behind Honduran coup
Bishop says wealthy elite behind Honduran coup

Aug. 05, 2009
By NCR Staff


Catholic News Service reports that a Catholic bishop in western Honduras said members of the country's wealthy elite were behind the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya.

Bishop Luis Santos Villeda of Santa Rosa de Copan also said the country needs a dialogue between the elite and Honduras' poor and working-class citizens. "Some say Manuel Zelaya threatened democracy by proposing a constitutional assembly. But the poor of Honduras know that Zelaya raised the minimum salary. That's what they understand. They know he defended the poor by sharing money with mayors and small towns. That's why they are out in the streets closing highways and protesting (to demand Zelaya's return)," the bishop told Catholic News Service.

In a July 30 telephone interview, he said it is misleading to consider Honduras a democracy, either before or after the June 28 coup. "There has never been a real democracy in Honduras. All we have is an electoral system where the people get to choose candidates imposed from above. The people don't really have representation, whether in the Congress or the Supreme Court, which are all chosen by the rich. We're the most corrupt country in Central America, and we can't talk about real democracy because the people don't participate in the decisions," he said.

http://ncronline.org/news/bishop-says-wealthy-elite-beh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Dawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
61. War criminal Richard Lugar also voted for the illegal Iraq War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-06-09 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
65. Our ambassador to Honduras was involved in the coup
This was posted last month in DU:

US ambassador Hugo Llorens had stated on a number of occasions that he was against the consultation being proposed by Zelaya on the possibility of a referendum on a constituent assembly, but he phrased his opposition in typical diplomatic language: one cannot violate the Constitution in order to create a Constitution, he said (La Prensa, June 4). This was precisely the argument used by the oligarchy to block Zelayas proposed consultation.

However, Llorens stressed that: whatever is finally done, it should be done within the law, within the Constitution. On June 17, he echoed the arguments of the Honduran capitalists: The political situation in the country does not help to create an investment friendly climate. Uncertainty in a country does not help investment (La Prensa). And he added that the dispute about the consultation should be resolved by Congress. What he was saying, loud and clear, was that the US were in favour of a democratic constitutional coup.

Right up to the eve of the coup, US ambassador Llorens was talking to the coup plotters. On June 21, there was a meeting in the US embassy with the presence of president Zelaya, as well as all the coup plotters: Congress president Micheletti, Liberal and National Party presidential candidates Santos and Lobo, and the head of the Armed Forces, Romeo Vsquez. According to the report in the Honduran La Prensa, Zelaya was told that the best way out of the crisis would be for him to cancel the consultation and carry out an opinion poll instead. (La Prensa, June 22). The very fact that the US ambassador is meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign country in this manner is a clear indication of the status of Honduras as a banana republic dominated by US imperialism. The message to Zelaya was clear: cancel the referendum or else.

It would be extremely nave to think that Llorens did not know of the plans for a coup ‑ in fact this was being openly discussed in the Honduran media in the days leading up to it ‑ and even more nave to think that he had not reported to Washington. Llorens is not a newcomer, he was nominated as US ambassador to Honduras by the Bush administration and had been Head of Andean Affairs at the National Security Council in 2002 and 2003. This position made him Bushs main advisor on matters related to Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador. He therefore was well aware of the failure of the 2002 coup in Venezuela.

http://www.marxist.com/honduras-army-prevents-zelaya-co...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #65
70. Oh, that's an unbiased source, NOT.
And a LENIN avatar? REALLY? That man was a scumbag totalitarian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. Address the content, and indicate what part of it is not factual. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
73. The Minimum Wage and the Coup in Honduras
Posted: August 7, 2009 01:09 PM BI
The Minimum Wage and the Coup in Honduras

The coup in Honduras - and the at best grudging and vacillating support in Washington for the restoration of President Zelaya - has thrown into stark relief a fundamental fault line in Latin America and a moral black hole in U.S. policy toward the region.

What is the minimum wage which a worker shall be paid for a day's labor?

Supporters of the coup have tried to trick Americans into believing that President Zelaya was ousted by the Honduran military because he broke the law. But this is nonsense. A Honduran bishop told Catholic News Service,
"Some say Manuel Zelaya threatened democracy by proposing a constitutional assembly. But the poor of Honduras know that Zelaya raised the minimum salary. That's what they understand. They know he defended the poor by sharing money with mayors and small towns. That's why they are out in the streets closing highways and protesting (to demand Zelaya's return)"
This is why the greedy, self-absorbed Honduran elite turned against President Zelaya: because he was pursuing policies in the interests of the majority. The Washington Post noted in mid-July,
To many poor Hondurans, deposed president Manuel "Mel" Zelaya was a trailblazing ally who scrapped school tuitions, raised the minimum wage and took on big business.
In a statement condemning support for the coup by U.S. business groups, the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation expressed its concern that under the coup regime, there are
worsening working conditions, and in particular at efforts to claw back a wage increase ordered by President Zelaya six months ago in order to reflect the increased cost of food and other essentials. In reality the increased wage barely covered 90% of basic food needs and less than a third of a living wage covering basic needs such as food, rent, transport, education, and medical care.
It's not just in Honduras that raising the minimum wage provoked a coup. In reporting about efforts by Haitian lawmakers this week to raise the minimum wage in Haiti, AP noted:
Former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in 2004, in part after business owners angered by his approval of an increased minimum wage organized opposition against him.
This May, the Haitian Parliament approved a proposal to triple the minimum wage to about $5 a day. But President Preval rejected this, saying
the increase should omit workers at factories producing garments for export. Preval said those workers should receive an increase to about $3.
What's the argument in Haiti against raising the minimum wage?
The debate has fueled unrest across the impoverished Caribbean nation, with some critics arguing that an increase would hurt plans to fight widespread unemployment by creating jobs in factories that produce clothing for export to the United States.
There are the magic words I search for in these articles, often buried at the bottom: "United States."

So, the argument is being made that Haiti can't afford to raise the minimum wage for workers in the export sector to $5 a day, because if they did Americans would buy clothes and shoes produced in some other countries.

Let me underline this, dear reader. You, as an American consumer, you are being invoked in Haiti as the reason that the minimum wage cannot be raised to $5 a day.

Of course this is nonsense. The overwhelming majority of Americans, along with the overwhelming majority of Haitians and Hondurans, would be absolutely delighted if Haitian and Honduran workers producing clothes for the U.S. market would be paid more. Labor costs are a small fraction of the prices that consumers face. Wages are so low because that yields even more profits for those who already have more money than they can ever spend; the low wage floor is being determined by government policy in Washington, Haiti, Honduras, and elsewhere, not by the desires of consumers. No magic formula of economics determines the minimum wage that can be sustained in Haiti and Honduras. At the margin - whether the minimum wage shall be $3 a day or $5 a day in the export sector in Haiti - it is determined politically.

If you say that the leverage of the U.S. consumer market should be used to support higher wages for poor workers in poor countries, rather than the opposite, you're likely to be told that this is not allowed. This leverage has been allocated to something else. The power of the U.S. market can only be used for things like forcing developing countries to enforce the patents, trademarks, and copyrights of U.S. pharmaceutical companies, software companies, and Hollywood.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/the-minimum...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. Thank you!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #77
91. Hi, Karenina. Thanks for taking the time to read it.
:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-07-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
75. You're too kind. Obama hasn't turned a blind eye, he's complicit
Very disappointing. I had hoped for so much better from him. Too bad Dennis Kucinich didn't win. Oh well....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boku-Wa Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #75
103. You are so right aout Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mudoria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
99. I guess they understand reality.. Zelaya is out and he's not coming back..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov 20th 2017, 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC