Democratically Elected President Is Ousted By Fascists In Honduras

[gopher]

news media and honduran public denounce the exile of Zelaya as a fascist campaign:

YouTube - HONDURAS " el ejercito dispara contra el pueblo Hondureño" MUERTOS Y HERIDOS..Telesur


if you understand Spanish you will see the repeated references to the action as that of fascistas (this is the Spanish word for fascists)

YouTube - EL PUEBLO HONDUREÑO RESISTE AL GOLPE DE ESTADO FASCISTA!!!

public denounces coup


YouTube - HONDURAS: Golpe de Estado FASCISTA

Evo Morales denounces illegal government action -- commentators also agree it was a fascist movement



Honduran military prevents ousted leader's landing; clash kills 1 - CNN.com


Zelaya calls government coup ''fascist'' --- ''"What are at risk are social reforms started in Latin America," he told Telesur. "What we see is a return of the right in Latin America -- a more reactionary right, more prone to killing, more fascist than in the past. They're regrouping. It's almost a conspiracy, a plot."


The people of Honduras, the people of Latin America, and most importantly, the President calls the coup a fascist plot. And as you can see from my earlier link, generals associated with the fascist School of Americas were involved with the coup. This is hardly the actions of democrats and that is why the majority of Hondurans support Zelaya.

 

[CDNBear]

news media and honduran public denounce the exile of Zelaya as a fascist campaign:

YouTube - HONDURAS " el ejercito dispara contra el pueblo Hondureño" MUERTOS Y HERIDOS..Telesur


if you understand Spanish you will see the repeated references to the action as that of fascistas (this is the Spanish word for fascists)

YouTube - EL PUEBLO HONDUREÑO RESISTE AL GOLPE DE ESTADO FASCISTA!!!

public denounces coup


YouTube - HONDURAS: Golpe de Estado FASCISTA

Evo Morales denounces illegal government action -- commentators also agree it was a fascist movement



Honduran military prevents ousted leader's landing; clash kills 1 - CNN.com


Zelaya calls government coup ''fascist'' --- ''"What are at risk are social reforms started in Latin America," he told Telesur. "What we see is a return of the right in Latin America -- a more reactionary right, more prone to killing, more fascist than in the past. They're regrouping. It's almost a conspiracy, a plot."


The people of Honduras, the people of Latin America, and most importantly, the President calls the coup a fascist plot. And as you can see from my earlier link, generals associated with the fascist School of Americas were involved with the coup. This is hardly the actions of democrats and that is why the majority of Hondurans support Zelaya.

Still waiting.

 

[ironsides]

Your basing your statement on a Youtube blog, and the words of people like Evo Morales. Bet Chavez would agree with you also. Ok, I can see your mistake.

 

[jwmcq625]

Not only that but members of his own Party, and the democratically elected Congress, as well as the judiciary were saying he was violating the laws and the Constitution by attempting to do exactly what Chavez has done in Venezuela. Good for the Congress, Supreme Court and the army for stopping this take-over before it got started. It show this guys mindset when his closest friends happen to be Chavez and Raul Castro.

 

[earth_as_one]

This isn't about fascism or socialism. Its about power. The President wanted more than the constitution allows, so he tried to change the constitution. Everyone else liked the constitution the way it is. The military, courts and congress all lined up against the President. He should have backed down, but he didn't.

I don't support anyone becoming President for life. The problem with Presidents is that once they gain power they can use their power to keep power. Replacing them regularly reduces the chances of a country become a dictatorship.

Canada and the US should adopt similar limits as Honduras.

 

[gopher]

''He was thrown out by the Congress for trying to become another King for life type leader. ''

The problem is that you are only getting a one sided view from the right wing American news media. What you need to do is to see how this is being reported in Latin America. If you did, you would get a different view. Note how the majority in Honduras refer to the traitors who toppled Zelaya as fascists, as have done all of Latin America, and has Zelaya himself.

Contrary to the lies you have read and believe, Zelaya was NOT trying to become a president for life. He did something that was WORSE as far as the far right in Honduras was concerned: HE INCREASED THE MINIMUM WAGE! And when it was clear he intended to create further change, that 's when the far right toppled him.

A Few Facts About the Honduran Military Coup—By Ken Silverstein (Harper's Magazine)



A Few Facts About the Honduran Military Coup


By Ken Silverstein

1. There’s very little truth to anything you’ve read about the coup in American newspapers.
2. President Manuel Zelaya is no radical. He approved a big minimum wage increase, which was desperately needed in a country where so many workers are poor, but he otherwise has been a very cautious, ineffectual reformer. The intensity of the reaction against him by the Honduran elite — as seen in the coup — reflects the feudal mentality of the traditional economic and political leadership, not Zelaya’s politics.
3. Zelaya was not seeking to stay in power by unconstitutional means; even if his political reforms had succeeded, he would have been out of power within the year. The only side guilty of unconstitutional action is the coup plotters.
4. Based on his response to events in Honduras, Barack Obama may as well be Ronald Reagan or George Bush when it comes to coups in Latin America. The Obama administration initially managed to muster “concern” about the coup, and has been acting in a cowardly fashion ever since. The only reason it has moved at all was that it was forced by the united front by Latin governments of left and right. If Zelaya is returned to power, it won’t be because of anything Obama did.
5. The American media does not believe in democracy, as seen in the routine portrayal of a moral equivalence between the elected government and the coup plotters. The Washington Post is the worst of the pack. For its editorial page, “democracy” is strictly utilitarian; it’s OK when our side wins; otherwise, we will justify vote-rigging or military action by the other side, even while pretending we support constitutional order.

But what else would you expect from a newspaper that fired its only opinion writer who was right about Iraq and that has offered to sell its reporters to the highest bidder? Maybe the Honduran military is buying up advertising space in the Post in order to ensure favorable treatment from Fred Hiatt & Co.

 

[gopher]

More truths which stand in great contrast to the lies you get from the far right news media in the USA:

Honduran Coup Tries to Halt Advance of Latin America's Left - NAM


Honduran Coup Tries to Halt Advance of Latin America's Left
New America Media, Commentary, Roger Burbach, Posted: Jul 03, 2009

The coup against Manuel Zelaya of Honduras represents a last ditch effort by Honduras’ entrenched economic and political interests to stave off the advance of the new left governments that have taken hold in Latin America over the past decade. As Zelaya proclaimed after being forcibly dumped in Costa Rica: “This is a vicious plot planned by elites. The elites only want to keep the country isolated and in extreme poverty.”

Zelaya should know, since his roots are in the country’s large, land-owning class, having devoted most of his life to agriculture and forestry enterprises that he inherited. He ran for president as the head of the center-right Liberal Party on a fairly conservative platform, promising to be tough on crime and to cut the budget. Inaugurated in January, 2006, he supported the US-backed Central American Free Trade Agreement, which been signed two years earlier, and continued the economic policies of neo-liberalism, privatizing state held enterprises.

But about half way into his four year term, the winds of change blowing from the south caught his imagination, particularly those coming from Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, the largest regional power fronting on the Caribbean. With no petroleum resources, Honduras signed a generous oil subsidy deal with Venezuela, and then last year joined the emergent regional trade bloc, ALBA, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. Inspired by Venezuela it now has Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Dominica and Ecuador as members. Simultaneously, Zelaya implemented domestic reform policies, significantly increasing the minimum wage of workers and teachers’ salaries, while stepping up spending in health care and education.

The upshot is that a reform-minded president supported by labor unions and social organizations is now pitted against a mafia-like, drug-ridden, corrupt political elite that is accustomed to controlling the Supreme Court, as well as congress and the presidency. It is a story often repeated elsewhere in Latin America, with the United States almost always weighing in on the side of the established, entrenched interests.

The Honduran elites were outraged that a member of their class would carry out even modest reforms. They began to portray Zelaya as a demagogue, and demonized Hugo Chavez as trying to take over the country. When Zelaya announced that he would hold a plebiscite on June 28 to see if the country wanted to have the option in the upcoming November presidential elections to vote for the convening of a constituent assembly that would draft a new constitution, the political establishment would have none of it. They incorrectly claimed that Zelaya was trying to stand for re-election. In fact the possibility that a president might serve a second term could only emerge in a new constitution that would not be drafted until well after Zelaya left office in January, 2010. The elites did however have reason to fear a new magna carta, since this is the path that Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador have used to draft new constitutions to begin transforming their countries political, social and economic structures.

The political establishment decided to nip this process in the bud by quashing the plebiscite scheduled for Sunday, June 28. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional and the military refused to help distribute the ballots. Then Zelaya fired the head of the army, General Romeo Vasquez, and led workers and social movement activists to seize ballots stored at an air force base for distribution. On Sunday at 6AM, the day of the plebiscite, the military sent a special army unit to seize Zelaya in his pajamas and to deport him to Costa Rica. The next day the Supreme Court levied charges of treason against Zelaya, and the Congress elevated its president, Roberto Micheletti to be the interim president of the country.
The rest of the Americas, and most of the world, reacted with outrage against the coup. The Organization of the Americas convened an emergency session and voted unanimously to call upon the coup makers to restore Zelaya to power. Regional organizations like the Group of Rio also denounced the coup, while the European Economic Union and the World Bank announced that they were suspending economic assistance to Honduras. Even the governments of Alvaro Uribe of Colombia and Felipe Calderon of Mexico felt compelled to denounce the coup.

What explains this virtually unanimous opposition to the coup? Most of Latin America still remembers the dark days of the 1970s and 1980s when three-quarters of the continent’s population fell under military rule. Countries like Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil still bear the scars and traumas of this period, and do not want to contemplate any opening that would allow their militaries to begin interfering once again in the political sphere.

The United States is also opposed to the coup, with President Obama denouncing it, saying it set a “terrible precedent” and that “We do not want to go back to a dark past” in which coups often trumped elections. He added: “We always want to stand with democracy.”

Many observers are suspicious of how solid the US stand against the coup is. Obama given his emphasis on multilateralism, may have had little choice, knowing that his predecessor George W. Bush had roiled Latin America when he rushed to endorse the last coup attempt in the region against Hugo Chavez in October, 2002.

The State Department has taken a more tepid stance. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked if “restoring the constitutional order” in Honduras meant restoring Zelaya, she would not say yes. The New York Times reports that she did not take to the Honduran president when she met him on June 2 at the meeting of the OAS in Tegucigalpa. Zelaya annoyed her by asking her to a private room late at night to have her meet and shake hands with his extended family. In a more formal meeting Zelaya brought up his plans for the referendum on June 28 with US officials taking the position that it was unconstitutional and would inflame the political situation.

Washington also has a very close relationship with the Honduran military, which goes back decades. During the 1980s the US used bases in Honduras to train and arm the Contras, Nicaraguan paramilitaries who became known for their atrocities in their war against the Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua. John Negroponte who became the czar of intelligence during the Bush administration after serving as US ambassador to Iraq, first achieved notoriety when he served as US ambassador to Honduras in the early 1980s and granted US approval to death squads run by a special Honduran military unit against domestic opponents.

On Wednesday, the OAS meeting in Washington called for the restoration of Zelaya to office by Saturday, July 4. The head of the OAS, Jose Miguel Insulza of Chile, along with the president of the UN General Assembly Miguel d’Escota of Nicaragua, and Presidents Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and Rafael Correa of Argentina and Ecuador respectively have said they will accompany Zelaya on his return.

But it is doubtful if he will be allowed to return by the coup leaders. For Micheletti and Vasquez, the Rubicon has been crossed and they cannot abandon power without suffering consequences. Any aircraft trying to descend with this list of dignitaries would require air-landing clearance by Honduran authorities and this would likely be denied. The key may well be whether the Obama administration is willing to bring inordinate pressure to bear on its historic allies or use its military air power to impose the deadline for Zelaya’s return. And if the external pressure gets Zelaya back in office, will he be allowed to get the vote for a constituent assembly that the country so badly needs to become a progressive society?

Roger Burbach is author of “The Pinochet Affair” and Director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) based in Berkeley, California.



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


The writer is one of the world's foremost authorities on Latin American politics.

 

[gopher]

Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional


RebelReports - Why President Zelaya's Actions in Honduras Were Legal and Constitutional


Zelaya attempted to give Hondurans the gift of participatory democracy. It was the coup leaders who violated the constitution. Those who say otherwise are wrong.

By Alberto Valiente Thoresen, RebelReports Guest Contributor
EDITOR’S NOTE: RebelReports is publishing this original article as a response to those who claim that the coup in Honduras was legal and/or constitutional and to the reporting by those media outlets that consistently repeat false characterizations of Honduran law and President Zelaya’s actions.—JS
In the classic Greek tragedy, Prometheus Bound, the playwright observes: “Of wrath’s disease wise words the healers are.” Shortly put, this story is about Prometheus, a titan who was punished by the almighty gods for having given humanity the capacity to create fire. This generated a conflict, which ended with Prometheus’ banishment and exile.

Currently, there is a tragedy being staged in the Central American republic Honduras. Meanwhile, the rest of humanity follows the events, as spectators of an outdated event in Latin America, which could set a very unfortunate undemocratic precedent for the region. In their rage, the almighty gods of Honduran politics have punished an aspiring titan, President Manuel Zelaya, for attempting to give Hondurans the gift of participatory democracy. This generated a constitutional conflict that resulted in president Zelaya’s banishment and exile. In this tragedy, words are once again the healers of enraged minds. If we, the spectators, are not attentive to these words, we risk succumbing intellectually, willfully accepting the facts presented by the angry coup-makers and Honduran gods of politics.

In this respect, media coverage of the recent military coup in Honduras is often misleading; even when it is presenting a critical standpoint towards the events. Concentrating on which words are used to characterize the policies conducted by President Zelaya might seem trivial at first sight. But any familiarity to the notion of ‘manufacturing of consent’, and how slight semantic tricks can be used to manipulate public opinion and support, is enough to realize the magnitude of certain omissions. Such oversights rely on the public’s widespread ignorance about some apparently minor legal intricacies in the Honduran Constitution.

For example, most reports have stated that Manuel Zelaya was ousted from his country’s presidency after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office. But this is not completely accurate. Such presentation of “facts” merely contributes to legitimizing the propaganda, which is being employed by the coup-makers in Honduras to justify their actions. This interpretation is widespread in US-American liberal environments, especially after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the coup is unacceptable, but that “all parties have a responsibility to address the underlying problems that led to [Sunday]’s events.” However, President Zelaya cannot be held responsible for this flagrant violation of the Honduran democratic institutions that he has tried to expand. This is what has actually happened:

The Honduran Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General, National Congress, Armed Forces and Supreme Electoral Tribunal have all falsely accused Manuel Zelaya of attempting a referendum to extend his term in office.

According to Honduran law, this attempt would be illegal. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution clearly states that persons, who have served as presidents, cannot be presidential candidates again. The same article also states that public officials who breach this article, as well as those that help them, directly or indirectly, will automatically lose their immunity and are subject to persecution by law. Additionally, articles 374 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (with amendments of 2005), clearly state that: “it is not possible to reform the Constitution regarding matters about the form of government, presidential periods, re-election and Honduran territory”, and that “reforms to article 374 of this Constitution are not subject to referendum.”

Nevertheless, this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do in Honduras the past Sunday and which the Honduran political/military elites disliked so much. President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.

Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article 373 of the current constitution, in which the National Congress has to approve with 2/3 of the votes, any reform to the 1982 Constitution, excluding reforms to articles 239 and 374. This means that a perfectly legal National Constituent Assembly would have a greater mandate and fewer limitations than the National Congress, because such a National Constituent Assembly would not be reforming the Constitution, but re-writing it. The National Constituent Assembly’s mandate would come directly from the Honduran people, who would have to approve the new draft for a constitution, unlike constitutional amendments that only need 2/3 of the votes in Congress. This popular constitution would be more democratic and it would contrast with the current 1982 Constitution, which was the product of a context characterized by counter-insurgency policies supported by the US-government, civil façade military governments and undemocratic policies. In opposition to other legal systems in the Central American region that (directly or indirectly) participated in the civil wars of the 1980s, the Honduran one has not been deeply affected by peace agreements and a subsequent reformation of the role played by the Armed Forces.

Recalling these observations, we can once again take a look at the widespread assumption that Zelaya was ousted as president after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office.

The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya’s term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya’s term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected. Moreover, it is completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term. Likewise, even if the Honduran public had decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new constitution. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the 1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239 and 374. The National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate from the people, would derogate the previous constitution before approving the new one. The people, not president Zelaya, who by that time would be ex-president Zelaya, would decide.

It is evident that the opposition had no legal case against President Zelaya. All they had was speculation about perfectly legal scenarios which they strongly disliked. Otherwise, they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress. As a result they helplessly unleashed a violent and barbaric preemptive strike, which has threatened civility, democracy and stability in the region.

It is fundamental that media channels do not fall into omissions that can delay the return of democracy to Honduras and can weaken the condemnation issued by strong institutions, like the United States government. It is also important that individuals are informed, so that they can have a critical attitude to media reports. Honduras needs democracy back now, and international society can play an important role in achieving this by not engaging in irresponsible oversimplifications.

Alberto Valiente Thoresen was born in San Salvador, El Salvador. He currently resides in Norway where he serves on the board of the Norwegian Solidarity Committee with Latin America



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


Bottom line is that Honduras politicos could have backed down but didn't. That is why it is now being ostracized by all of Latin America.

 

[Cannuck]

So now you are citing stuff from rebelreports.com to back up your claims?

So let me get this straight. Your evidence that radical right wingers have seized power in Honduras is that radical left wingers say so. I'm so glad you post here. You do make the site so much more entertaining.

 

[darkbeaver]

That's the problem with democracy. It is rule by majority, even though the popular trend may be the least wisest direction to follow.

Yeah well if that majority didn't have a controling ruling minority who skewed the decision making process of the mass electorate with their incessant comedys and soap operas laced with hundred of thousands of tons of common bull**** then the decisions made by the majority selections would be wise and durable. You don't provide more and better by providing less and worse.

 

[darkbeaver]

Can you smell the beautiful fear of the fascist right of the world today? With every popularly overturned corrupt government they feel the pink tides legal remedy and tremble at the thought of its application here in Canada.

 

[CDNBear]

Still waiting...

Some things I found out from following goophers links...

Zelaya's a wealthy land owner. His father procured said land through murder and intimidation. Several people that opposed him, were found in his well, shot with his rifle. Several people, mostly reporters that opposed Zelaya, kept showing up dead...

Yep, he's a saint. No wonder the morally bankrupt love him.

 

[gopher]

Postcards from the Revolution: The Role of the International Republican Institute (IRI) in the Honduran Coup



The Role of the International Republican Institute (IRI) in the Honduran Coup



The International Republican Institute talks of “coup” in Honduras, months before

By Eva Golinger

The International Republican Institute (IRI), considered the international branch of the U.S. Republican Party, and one of the four “core groups” of the congressionally created and funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), apparently knew of the coup d’etat in Honduras against President Zelaya well in advance. IRI is well known for its role in the April 2002 coup d’etat against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and its funding and strategic advising of the principal organizations involved in the ouster of President Jean Bertrand Aristide of Haiti in 2004. In both cases, IRI funded and/or trained and advised political parties and groups that were implicated in the violent, undemocratic overthrow of democratically elected presidents.

After the 2002 coup d’etat occured in Venezuela, IRI president at the time, George Folsom, sent out a celebratory press release claiming, “The Institute has served as a bridge between the nation’s political parties and all civil society groups to help Venezuelans forge a new democratic future…” Hours later, after the coup failed and the people of Venezuelan rescued their president, who had been kidnapped and imprisoned on a military base, and reinstalled constitutional order, IRI regretted its premature, public applause for the coup. One of its principal funders, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), was furious that IRI had publicly revealed the U.S. government had provided funding and support for the coup leaders. NED President Carl Gershman was so irritated with IRI’s blunder, that he sent out a memo to Folsom, chastising him: “By welcoming [the coup] – indeed, without any apparent reservations – you unnecessarily interjected IRI into the sensitive internal politics o Venezuela”. Gershman would have much prefered that NED and IRI’s role in fomenting and supporting the coup against President Chávez have remained a secret.

IRI, chaired by Senator John McCain, was created in 1983 as part of the National Endowment for Democracy’s mission to “promote democracy around the world”, a mandate from President Ronald Reagan. In reality, one of NED’s founders, Allen Weinstein, put it this way in a 1991 interview with the Washington Post, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." IRI’s own history, according to its website (www.iri.org) also explains that its original work was in Latin America, at a time when the Reagan administration was under heavy scrutiny and pressure from the U.S. Congress for funding paramilitary groups, dictatorships and death squads in Central and South America to install U.S.-friendly regimes and supress leftist movements. “Congress responded to President Reagan’s call in 1983 when it created the National Endowment for Democracy to support aspiring democrats worldwide. Four nonprofit, nonpartisan democracy institutes were formed to carry out this work – IRI, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS).”“In its infancy, IRI focused on planting the seeds of democracy in Latin America. Since the end of the Cold War, IRI has broadened its reach to support democracy and freedom around the globe. IRI has conducted programs in more than 100 countries.”

In its initial days, IRI, along with the other coup groups of the NED, funded organizations in Nicaragua to foment the destabilization of the Sandinista government. Journalist Jeremy Bigwood explained part of this role in his article, “No Strings Attached?”, "’When the rhetoric of democracy is put aside, NED is a specialized tool for penetrating civil society in other countries down to the grassroots level’ to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals, writes University of California-Santa Barbara professor William Robinson in his book, A Faustian Bargain. Robinson was in Nicaragua during the late ‘80s and watched NED work with the U.S.-backed Nicaraguan opposition to remove the leftist Sandinistas from power during the 1990 elections.”

The evidence of IRI’s role in the 2002 coup d’etat in Venezuela has been well documented and investigated. Proof of such involvement, which is still ongoing in terms of IRI’s work, funding, strategic advising and training of opposition political parties in Venezuela, is available through documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act posted here: , and also available in my book, The Chávez Code: Cracking U.S. Intervention in Venezuela (Olive Branch Press 2006). None of the claims or evidence regarding IRI’s role in fomenting and supporting the April 2002 in Venezuela and its ongoing support of the Venezuelan opposition has ever been disclaimed by the institution, primarily because all evidence cited comes from IRI and NED’s own internal documentation obtained under FOIA.
Hence, when the recent coup d’etat occured in Honduras, against democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya, there was little doubt of U.S. fingerprints. IRI’s name appeared as a recipient of a $700,000 Latin American Regional Grant in 2008-2009 from NED to promote “good governance” programs in countries including Honduras. An additional grant of $550,000 to work with “think tanks” and “pressure groups” in Honduras to influence political parties was also given by the NED to IRI in 2008-2009, specifically stating, IRI will support initiatives to implement [political] positions into the 2009 campaigns. IRI will place special emphasis on Honduras, which has scheduled presidential and parliamentary elections in November 2009.” That is clear direct intervention in internal politics in Honduras.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) also provides approximately $49 million annually to Honduras, a large part of which is directed towards “democracy promotion” programs. The majority of the recipients of this aid in Honduras, which comes in the form of funding, training, resources, strategic advice, communications counseling, political party strengthening and leadership training, are organizations directly linked to the recent coup d’etat, such as the Consejo Nacional Anticorrupción, the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, the Honduran Private Enterprise Council (COHEP), the Council of University Deans, the Confederation of Honduran Workers (CTH), the National Convergence Forum, the Chamber of Commerce (FEDECAMARA), the Association of Private Media (AMC), the Group Paz y Democracia and the student group Generación X Cambio. These organizations form part of a coalition self-titled “Unión Cívica Democrática de Honduras” (Civil Democratic Union of Honduras) that has publicly backed the coup against President Zelaya.

IRI’s press secretary, Lisa Gates, responded to claims that IRI funded or aided (which also involves non-monetary aid, such as training, advising and providing resources) groups involved in the Honduran coup as “false reports”. However, there are several interesting links between the republican organization and the violent coup d’etat against President Zelaya that do indicate the institute’s involvement, as well as to the above mentioned funding that exceeds $1 million during just this year. In addition to its presence on the ground in Honduras as part of its “good governance” and “political influence” programs, IRI Regional Program Director, Latin America and the Carribean, Alex Sutton, has recently been closely involved with many of the organizations in the region that have backed the Honduran coup. Sutton was a featured speaker at a recent 3-day conference held in Venezuela by the U.S.-funded ultraconservative Venezuelan organization CEDICE (Centro para la Divulgación de Conocimiento Económico). CEDICE’s director, Rocío Guijarra, was one of the principal executors of the 2002 coup d’etat against President Hugo Chávez, and Guijarra personally signed a decree installing a dictatorship in the country, which led to the coup’s overthrow by the people and loyal armed forces of Venezuela. The conference Sutton participated in, held from May 28-29 in Venezuela was attended by leaders of Latin America’s ultra-conservative movement, ranging from Bolivian ex president Jorge Quiroga, who has called for President Evo Morales of Bolivia’s overthrow on several occasions, Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa and his son Alvaro, both of whom have publicly expressed support for the coup against President Zelaya in Honduras, and numerous leaders of the Venezuelan opposition, the majority of whom are well known for their involvement in the April 2002 coup and subsequent destabilization attempts. The majority of those present at the CEDICE conference in May 2009, have publicly expressed support for the recent coup against President Zelaya.

But a more damning piece of evidence linking IRI to the Honduran coup, is a video clip posted on the institute’s website at http://www.iri.org/multimedia.asp. The clip or podcast, features a slideshow presentation given by Susan Zelaya-Fenner, assistant program officer at IRI, on March 20, 2009, discussing the “good governance” program in Honduras. Curiously, at the beginning of the presentation, Zelaya-Fenner explains what she considers “a couple of interesting facts about Honduras.” These include, “Honduras is a very overlooked country in a small region. Honduras has had more military coups than years of independence, it has been said. However, parodoxically, more recently it has been called a pillar of stability in the region, even being called the U.S.S. Honduras, as it avoided all of the crisis that its neighbors went through during the civil wars in the 1980s.”

Important to note is that what Zelaya-Fenner refers to as “U.S.S. Honduras” and “avoid[ing] all of the crisis that its neighbords went through during the civil wars in the 1980s” was because the U.S. government, CIA and Pentagon utilized Honduras as the launching pad for the attacks on Honduras’ neighbors. U.S. Ambassador at the time, John Negroponte, and Colonel Oliver North, trained, funded and planned the paramilitary missions of the death squads that were used to assassinate, torture, persecute, disappear and neutralize tens of thousands of farmers and “suspected” leftists in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

Zelaya-Fenner continues, “Thus, Honduras has been more recently stable, and it’s always been poor, which means that it’s below the radar, and gets little attention. The current president, Manuel Zelaya and his buddies, the leftists in the Latin American region have caused a lot of political destabilization recently in the country. He is a would-be emulator of Hugo Chavez and Hugo Chavez' social revolution. He has spent the better part of this administration trying to convince the Honduran people, who tend to be very practical and very 'center' that the Venezuelan route is the way to go. Zelaya's leftist leanings further exarcerbate an already troubled state. Corruption is rampant, crime is at all time highs. Drug trafficking and related violence have begun to spill over from Mexico. And there's a very real sense that the country is being purposefully destabilized from within, which is very new in recent Honduran history. Coups are thought to be so three decades ago until now (laughs, audience laughs), again.”

Did she really say that? Yes, you can hear it yourself on the podcast. Is it merely a coincidence that the coup against President Zelaya occured just three months after this presentation? State Department officials have admitted that they knew the coup was in the works for the past few months. Sub-secretary of State Thomas Shannon was in Honduras the week before the coup, apparently trying to broker some kind of deal with the coup planners to find another “solution” to the “problem”. Nevertheless, they continued funding via NED and USAID to those very same groups and military sectors involved in the coup. It is not a hidden fact that Washington was unhappy with President Zelaya’s alliances in the region, principally with countries such as Venezuela and Nicaragua. It is also public knowledge that President Zelaya was in the process of removing the U.S. military presence from the Soto Cano airbase, using a fund from the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas (ALBA – Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua, St. Kitts, Antigua & Barbados and Venezuela) to convert the strategically important Pentagon base into a commercial airport.

IRI’s Zelaya-Fenner explains the strategic importance of Honduras in her presentation, "Why does Honduras matter? A lot of people ask this question, even Honduran historians and experts. Some might argue that it doesn't and globally it might be hard to counter. However, the country is strategic to regional stability and this is an election year in Honduras. It's a strategic time to help democrats with a small “d”, at a time when democracy is increasingly coming under attack in the region.”
There is no doubt that the coup against President Zelaya is an effort to undermine regional governments implementing alternative models to capitalism that challenge U.S. concepts of representative democracy as “the best model”. Countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, are building successful models based on participatory democracy that ensure economic and social justice, and prioritize collective social prosperity and human needs over market economics. These are the countries, together now with Honduras, that have been victims of NED, USAID, IRI and other agencies’ interventions to subvert their prospering democracies.

 

[gopher]

Can you smell the beautiful fear of the fascist right of the world today? With every popularly overturned corrupt government they feel the pink tides legal remedy and tremble at the thought of its application here in Canada.

That is why the OAS has evicted the present Honduras junta from its membership. The reichsters are now shaking in their panties and coming up with every excuse to defend their crimes. But the boycott taken by the OAS will soon cause them to lose their grip on Honduras as well.

 

[EagleSmack]

ChavezcodeDOTcom

LOL.

 

[Cannuck]

It would appear Gopher has conceded defeat. He has moved from debate mode to cut and paste mode. It won't be long before he brings up Bush and Iraq. This is the usual flow of things when he gets.....

 

[gopher]

The forum reich wingers would like to believe they won the argument but the facts show otherwise.

 

[gopher]

Honduras: Evidence Suggests Soldiers Shot Into Unarmed Crowd


Honduras: Evidence Suggests Soldiers Shot Into Unarmed Crowd | Human Rights Watch

De Facto Government Should Let Inter-American Commission Investigate

July 8, 2009

Related Materials:
Honduras: Decree Suspends Basic Rights
Honduras: Military Coup a Blow to Democracy


Other Material:
Click here for a photo slideshow of the demonstration at which the shooting occurred, including photos of the teenager who was killed by the gunfire


Related Features:

Honduras: Shooting at Tegucigalpa Airport
Honduras: Shooting at Tegucigalpa Airport







The evidence we've seen suggests that soldiers shot at unarmed demonstrators. Because someone is dead, the de facto government is obliged to make sure an independent investigation is carried out instead of issuing blanket denials.



José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch




Evidence obtained by Human Rights Watch suggests that Honduran soldiers may have used excessive force against supporters of the ousted president, Manuel Zelaya, outside the Tegucigalpa airport on July 5, 2009, Human Rights Watch said today. At least one teenage boy was killed, and more than 10 other people are reported to have been injured during the confrontation between soldiers and demonstrators. Reports of a second death remain unconfirmed.
Honduran officials have publicly claimed that the army was not responsible for the reported casualties. But testimony from witnesses, along with photographs and video footage taken at the time of the shooting, indicate that soldiers may have shot live ammunition at unarmed demonstrators.
"The evidence we've seen suggests that soldiers shot at unarmed demonstrators," said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. "Because someone is dead, the de facto government is obliged to make sure an independent investigation is carried out instead of issuing blanket denials."
On July 6, the de facto government's foreign minister claimed that the security forces had "no responsibility" for the casualties and that the two reported deaths were the result of shooting by demonstrators. The national human rights ombudsman stated that the army had used only rubber bullets to disperse the crowd.
Human Rights Watch said these statements are inconsistent with the evidence it has reviewed. Two foreign journalists (a photojournalist and a videojournalist), reported to Human Rights Watch that they did not see the demonstrators carrying lethal weapons when the confrontation began, though one witness said some of the demonstrators had started throwing rocks at the soldiers from a distance. Some of the soldiers opened fire after demonstrators began to take down a fence (one of the witnesses said it was the outer one of two fences on the perimeter of the airport runway). The witnesses reported that, throughout the confrontation, the sound of gunshots came exclusively from the direction of the soldiers.
One witness stated that he observed at least two soldiers come through the fence and shoot their weapons into the crowd, at the level at which the people were running. The other reported that he observed a soldier deliberately and methodically aiming and shooting his rifle at demonstrators in the crowd.
These accounts from witnesses are supported by photos and video footage taken at the scene. The images show demonstrators running and throwing themselves behind walls and other objects, apparently seeking shelter from gunfire. (After the shooting, one of the witnesses said he observed bullet holes on the walls behind which many of the demonstrators were taking shelter.) Other demonstrators are seen in the images throwing rocks at the soldiers. In the video, the sound of shooting goes on intermittently for approximately 10 minutes. Some of the images appear to show soldiers firing their weapons at the crowd. They show the body of the one person whose death has been confirmed, a teenager whose name is reported to be Isi Obed Murillo.
According to multiple news reports, the boy died from a gunshot wound to the head. The father of the victim was at the demonstration and is reported to have said that he had observed a soldier take aim and fire at the demonstrators.
Human Rights Watch pointed out that the visual evidence suggests that at least some of the soldiers were using live ammunition, not rubber bullets. The images appear to show that the weapons the soldiers were using were a mix of M-16 variants, which require adaptors to use rubber bullets. The images do not show such adaptors on the weapons. Images of brass casings left behind by the soldiers after the shooting also show that the casings were not crimped, as would ordinarily be the case with blanks, which would denote the use of rubber bullets.
Even if the army had used only rubber bullets, Human Rights Watch pointed out that rubber bullets may have lethal force. As a result, international standards require that they only be used in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury. In any case, rubber bullets are not meant to be fired in close quarters and should only be aimed below the waist, to incapacitate, as upper body shots have resulted in death. In this case, despite the rock-throwing, there would appear to have been no adequate justification for shooting rubber bullets into the crowd.
Human Rights Watch said that special measures would be required to ensure a serious investigation of the events to determine if soldiers did shoot into the crowd and the causes of the casualties. It called on the de facto government to give its consent to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to enter the country and conduct an independent investigation of this incident and other alleged abuses that have taken place in the aftermath of the coup d'etat on June 28. (The commission submitted a formal request to visit the country on June 30.)
"The Inter-American Commission would bring to the investigation the necessary independence and credibility that, in the wake of the coup, officials in the de facto government simply lack," said Vivanco.






I suppose the forum reichsters believe these are the actions of peace loving Republicans.

 

[Liberalman]

Are there human rights in protesting?

Is it the responsibility of the police to respect human rights during a violent protest while they are pelted by rocks and other objects the protesters can throw?

Anytime the police or military gets involved with civil disobedience they go though a list when they arrive to get order.

They tell the protesters to go home.

Then if they do not leave they will be arrested

Then the police use non lethal force like Billy clubs to restore order then when the protests get more violent the water cannons, tear gas and bean bags are shot at the protesters and if this does not get order then they move to rubber bullets then at the last resort real bullets and tanks.

When I was young I participated in some peaceful protests that became violent and it was always the same and it is the same now.

The first wave of any protest is students because they are more easily manipulated.

Students learn about how the country was founded and they are taught quick change can only be accomplished through violent means like revolutions and if you believe in a cause you have to be ready to die for it.

People with hidden agenda’s will go to college and university campuses and hand out flyers and start small groups and start teaching their propaganda.

When a peace protest is organized and going on there is usually a small group of instigators that will turn a peaceful march to a violent event this attracts the news media that reports it on the news, which will bring out other people to the protest.

Protester like to act tough for the TV cameras and when the protesters are at certain locations the organizers will send more protesters to that location.

Protest organizers are good at manipulating the media.

This is why countries are banning media from their conflict areas.

Examples of this are America’s Iraq war, Israel’s Gaza war, China’s violent protest and Iran’s voting irregularities violent protest.

Modern government are realizing that media are instigators to increased violence by merely reporting what is happening in those areas.

These people are now using technology like social networking to bring out more protesters.
We have to remember that protesters take on a gang mentality and will do things that the individuals in the protest would never do.

Social networking through the Internet is the latest brainwashing tool in the arsenal of the modern terrorist.

When countries like China and Iran cut Internet access their countries violent protests stopped soon after.

When a protest becomes violent human rights just doesn’t apply anymore.

 

[ironsides]

Yup, that shows a violent protester alright. It would happen in Canada if the people acted like a bunch of idiots. It did happen in the U.S. a couple of times also, not by fascists, but by neighbor verses neighbor.