La gira del vicepresidente Joe Biden esta semana por México y Honduras ha motivado a varios líderes latinoamericanos a hacer un llamado a los Estados Unidos para que juegue un papel mas protagónico en lo que respecta a la situación de inseguridad en el área. Este llamado incluye la promoción de un rol más decisivo en la prevención del tráfico de armas y una propuesta para la legalización de las drogas como posibles soluciones a la ola de violencia que afecta a la región. A pesar de que en los medios de comunicación se escucha mucho sobre la precaria situación de inseguridad en México, países como Honduras y El Salvador también han registrado en los últimos años dos de los más altos índices de homicidios a nivel mundial. Los niveles de violencia en estos países, la mayor parte de la cual es relacionada con el tráfico de las drogas destinadas al mercado norteamericano, han sobrepasado incluso a aquellos vistos en lugares como Irak y Afganistán. Es por ello que es de suma importancia que el gobierno estadounidense escuche este llamado y retome las riendas de su propia política exterior con relación a Latinoamérica. Cresencio Arcos, el embajador de los Estados Unidos en Honduras bajo el presidente George H. W. Bush, ha atinado al decir que el mayor problema de la estrategia a largo plazo de la política exterior de los Estados Unidos en Centro y Sudamérica es que ésta es prácticamente inexistente. En los últimos años el vacío dejado en la política exterior por la caída de la Cortina de Hierro ha causado que la influencia de los Estados Unidos en la región se haya debilitado. Esto ha sido muy notorio, no sólo en la fallida “Guerra contra las drogas,” sino también en el mal manejo que ha hecho Washington en su relación con los gobernantes de países como Venezuela y Bolivia. De igual forma la falta de claridad sobre la posición de la administración de Obama después del golpe de estado en Honduras dejó a muchos expertos preguntándose si en realidad existe una estrategia en materia política para la región. Es importante recalcar que esto no es un llamado al regreso al modelo implementado durante la guerra fría, sino mas bien a una reevaluación de las políticas de cooperación con la región que sean mutuamente benéficas. Mientras esto no suceda, se seguirán apagando fuegos en lugar de prevenirlos. Por todo esto, lo mas prudente es el presidente Obama y la secretaria de estado Clinton se aseguren que el llamado hecho por los presidentes de la región no caiga en oídos sordos. Es difícil, pero no imposible, promover el desarrollo de la región, reducir la violencia y fortalecer la política migratoria. Pero para que esto suceda los Estados Unidos debe establecer una política exterior clara, que permita a sus aliados participar en este proceso en un ambiente transparente.
por Lucas Romero La actual constitución de Honduras, como cualquier documento legal, es un claro reflejo de los tiempos en que fue escrita. Después de décadas de dictaduras militares, la sociedad hondureña a través de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente creada en 1981, se pronunció en contra del continuismo que había caracterizado los gobiernos militares del siglo 20 en ese país. Como resultado quedaron claramente establecidas en el texto de la carta magna aprobada en 1982 no sólo la prohibición de la reelección presidencial sino también la criminalización de cualquier intento de reforma a los artículos que respaldan esa premisa. En las últimas tres décadas estos artículos pétreos, llamados así por su carácter inamovible, han permanecido así, anclados en el temor (real o infundido por intereses privados) de un regreso a los tiempos del absolutismo que ahogó a la democracia hondureña durante la mayor parte del siglo 20. Irónicamente, en los últimos años la clase política que domina en Honduras ha utilizado estos “artículos defensores de la democracia” como un arma efectiva en contra de la participación ciudadana cuando las iniciativas que han emanado del pueblo van en contra de los intereses de dicha clase dominante. El más claro ejemplo de esa manipulación fue el golpe de estado del 2009 perpetrado en contra del presidente Manuel Zelaya a quien se le expulsó ilegalmente del país sin debido proceso. En esa ocasión la Corte Suprema de Justicia, catalogada por Larry Birns del Consejo de Asuntos Hemisféricos de Washington como “una de las instituciones más corruptas en Latinoamérica”, acusó a Zelaya de violar la constitución al intentar llevar a cabo un referéndum o encuesta pública supuestamente con el objetivo de obtener apoyo para su reelección. Dichas acusaciones nunca vieron la luz de una corte competente y Zelaya siempre negó que esa haya sido su intención. Muchos analistas políticos opuestos al golpe sostienen que el fantasma del continuismo fue solo una excusa utilizada por la clase política dominante para evitar incrementos al salario mínimo y revisiones a la ley de reforma agraria promovidas por Zelaya. A pesar de todo esto, el pasado 11 de enero el Congreso hondureño discutió y aprobó reformas al artículo 5 de la constitución cuyo texto se refiere al concepto de democracia participativa a través de herramientas de consulta popular como le referéndum y el plebiscito. Aparte de facilitar el acceso a dichas herramientas al reducir el número de firmas necesarias para la introducción de una propuesta, las reformas aprobadas no cambian drásticamente lo que se refiere a quien tiene la potestad legal de utilizar las herramientas de consulta. Es decir, la discusión en el seno de la cámara legislativa en 2011 de un instrumento político por cuyo uso un presidente fue expulsado en 2009 es una clara contradicción. A la luz de estos acontecimientos no nos queda otra opción más que preguntar ¿porque ahora sí es legal lo que hace dos años no lo era? La respuesta es simple, la legalidad de la figura del referéndum no ha cambiado, lo que ha cambiado es quien se estará beneficiando al utilizarla. La falta de pronunciamiento público de algunos de los sectores de la sociedad hondureña a favor o en contra de las reformas no es sorpresiva. Es probable que hasta que la ley se ratifique en marzo, los sindicatos, las organizaciones sociales y grupos religiosos procederán con cautela y no expresarán su apoyo u oposición. Entretanto esperamos este desenlace, nos es fácil suponer que mientras estas o cualquieras otras reformas constitucionales no amenacen con afectar económicamente a la clase política dominante, los fantasmas del continuismo permanecerán tranquilos. Tranquilos pero no dormidos, siempre atentos al llamado para “defender la constitución.”
A 18 meses del golpe de estado que derrocó al presidente hondureño Manuel Zelaya, la crisis política en ese país sigue vigente.
La falta de liderazgo y voluntad política del gobierno del presidente Porfirio Lobo han hecho que la problemática en materia socioeconómica y de seguridad que afecta a la mayoría de los hondureños, lejos de resolverse, siga empeorando.
Desafortunadamente, un vistazo a la raquítica cobertura por parte de los medios de comunicación internacionales de lo que está aconteciendo en Honduras deja evidente que el enfoque primordial no son las constantes violaciones a los derechos humanos a manos de los militares, a pesar de haber sido documentadas por la Comisión Interamericana de los Derechos Humanos.
Tampoco han tenido un alto nivel de cobertura los asesinatos de campesinos a mano de grupos armados contratados por empresarios terratenientes en el Bajo Aguan, zona donde cientos de hectáreas de las mejores tierras se encuentran en disputa. En los últimos meses el enfoque se ha concentrado casi exclusivamente en torno a lo relacionado a la reintegración de esa nación centroamericana a los distintos organismos y grupos internacionales como la OEA y a su participación en cumbres regionales.
Es preocupante que la prensa internacional no dedique más espacio en los medios al hecho de que en los primeros siete meses del 2010 se registró en Honduras una cifra record de asesinatos de periodistas, según un reporte emitido a finales de julio por el Comité para la Protección de los Periodistas. Mientras nos preparamos para recibir el año 2011, el periodismo en Honduras sigue siendo amenazado por actos de violencia y censura y por el monopolio de los medios de comunicación por parte de la clase social y política que no sólo impulsó el golpe de estado, sino que también se ha visto económicamente favorecida por el derrocamiento de Zelaya.
Es por ello que ahora es más importante que nunca que el periodismo internacional llene el vacío dejado en estos momentos de crisis por su contraparte en Honduras. Ahora que la posición de Honduras en el continente está siendo analizada, los gobiernos de los países latinoamericanos tienen una excelente oportunidad de promover la restitución del orden democrático y el cese a las violaciones de los derechos humanos en Honduras, pero para ello la información debe fluir con más libertad.
La reintegración de Honduras a la OEA, por ejemplo, debe reunir ciertos requisitos. Es aquí donde los hondureños esperamos que el periodismo internacional juegue un papel decisivo.
Roberto Micheletti’s de facto government is back in the news. Last week, news broke in Honduras that the official newspaper, La Gaceta, published two different versions with the same number and date in the last days of Micheletti’s time in the Presidential Palace. The major difference? One version contained a controversial dam contract. After many months of Micheletti promoting his de facto government as the clean and honest side of the Liberal Party, the gacetazo (as the Honduran media has deemed the scandal) will further mar the legacy of Micheletti and his supporters.
In their last days in office, presidents often sign controversial decrees that would have proved too controversial earlier in their term. In the United States, for instance, recent presidents have extended pardons to convicts and established vast natural reserves. Presidents must be careful, however, not to over-step in their last days, or else their legacy will be stained by controversy. President Clinton, for instance, went too far when he pardoned Mark Rich, sparking allegations that the wealthy Rich had purchased his freedom with political contributions.
In Honduras, it seems that Roberto Micheletti’s de facto government, with the Congress his party controlled, could not resist the temptations of the last days in office, either. Just before relinquishing power, Micheletti and the Congress rushed to approve a $160 million contract to operate and improve the José Cecilio del Valle Dam (better known as the Nacaome Dam). In January, the Honduran Congress sped through the process of granting the contract to a Honduran-Italian consortium. Then-President of the Congress, José Alfredo Saavedra, argued that Congress had recently fast-tracked laws, including the general amnesty passed in January, so the contract should not raise concerns. After the congressional vote, Roberto Micheletti signed the contract into law in his last cabinet meeting.
Almost immediately after Micheletti left power and Congress changed hands, however, the contract came into question. Only days after President Porfirio Lobo took office, the new government placed a hold on the publication of the decree in the country’s official newspaper, La Gaceta. Two weeks later, however, it became clear that La Gaceta had published two versions for January 22, 2010, with the same issue number. One version contained 16 pages, with no mention of the dam contract; the other included an additional 16 pages covering the dam contract and the creation of a new government office of criminal investigation. To make matters worse, the office in charge of publishing La Gaceta, Empresa Nacional de Artes Gráficas (ENAG), apparently only published 20 copies of the second version, and then denied publishing them at all once these copies had disappeared.
While the country awaits the results of an initial investigation by the Ministerio Público, all eyes are on the ENAG and the dam consortium for foul play. Saavedra, no longer president of Congress since the National Party took control, has backtracked and agreed to support the derogation of the contract. Questions remain, however, about the complicity of Saavedra, Micheletti and other powerful figures within the Liberal Party who pushed this contract through without sufficient public scrutiny.
Of course, this issue raises important issues about the transparency of the Honduran political process, long plagued by corruption. But, perhaps more importantly, it further undermines the reputation of honesty and integrity that Roberto Micheletti and his supporters in Congress sought to fashion for themselves after standing by the coup that overthrew Manuel Zelaya. Throughout his time in office, Micheletti presented himself as a humble public servant thrust into an unenviable but necessary position. His supporters (in Congress and the mainstream Honduran media) repeatedly contrasted his behavior with the innumerable accusations of corruption they leveled against Manuel Zelaya.
Congress granted Micheletti a congressional salary-for-life, and now the dam contract scandal has followed. Those in power since last June have continued to sow doubt regarding their credibility. In particular, recent events make it even more difficult to determine the credence of their claims that Zelaya’s government raided the country’s coffers for personal gain. If solid evidence exists, it will now become more difficult to convince the Honduran public and international observers. (Of course, none of this would change the reality of the coup, but it remains important for how the country remembers Zelaya’s term in office, events since June 28, and the role of Roberto Micheletti and the Congress.)
For now, the Honduran media and public have more questions than answers about the gacetazo. What cannot be refuted, however, is that this controversy will further stain the legacy of the de facto government that assumed power after the illegal ouster of Manuel Zelaya.
*Daniel Altschuler is a contributing blogger to americasquarterly.org conducting research in Guatemala and Honduras. He is a Rhodes Scholar and doctoral candidate in Politics at the University of Oxford, and his research focuses on civic and political participation in Honduras and Guatemala
While most international news organizations took obedient dictation of the Honduras coup regime's claims of more than 62 percent voter participation in the November 29 "elections," authentic journalist Jesse Freeston did what real reporters are supposed to do: He went directly to the source, asked questions, took notes, and videotaped the evidence.
Freeston today publishes this bombshell report, above, on The Real News that documents definitively that Honduras electoral officials knowingly lied about their claims of more than 60 percent voter turnout. The hard results in possession of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE, in its Spanish initials) demonstrate only 49.2 percent turnout: That means that a majority - more than 50 percent - of Honduran citizens abstained in the "elections" that the National Front Against the Coup d'Etat had called unfair, unfree and placed under boycott.
The hard numbers show that abstention - and by inference, the Resistance - was the winner in the November 29 vote.
Usually, electoral fraud is committed to change the outcome between candidates in an election. It is not yet known whether the stuffing of official results with claims of 62 percent voter turnout (about 25 percent higher than the actual 49 percent participation) was also used to change the results of presidential, congressional or municipal contests.
The real question all along was well known to be: How many Hondurans would vote? And how many Hondurans would not? In the coup regime's zeal to legitimize this electoral farce it invented a number - 62 - and claimed that to be the percent of participation in the November 29 vote. Journalist Freeston walks the viewer, step by step, through the post-electoral claims by presidential candidate Pepe Lobo (declared winner of the mock elections), members of the Honduran Congress, diplomats from the United States, Canada, Costa Rica and other countries, and international corporate newspaper editorials, all of which cited the "more than 60 percent turnout" to label the "elections" as free, fair and transparent.
He then goes inside the vote counting rooms at the Supreme Electoral Tribunal in Tegucigalpa, camera in hand, and videotapes the real numbers from computer screens and paper print-outs: 49.2 percent turnout. He also conducts an interview with Leonardo Ramírez Pareda, the official responsible for counting the votes, who in a moment of frankness (perhaps unaware of what his bosses were claiming outside the room to the press) says, matter of factly, that the participation was at 49 percent. All of this evidence is on camera, and it is now known to the world, thanks to the journalist gumshoe work of Freeston and The Real News.
The 49.2 percent turnout count, Freeston notes, is very close to the independent count of the US-financed "Hagamos Democracía" organization, which works under the auspices of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) of the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Freeston notes that the NDI withheld its own count information from its press release lauding the the "elections" as a success.
The work that Freeston did to bring you, and all Hondurans and citizens of the world, these facts was something that any reporter for AP, Reuters, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or any other media could have done, but did not do: report the real facts that were available on the ground even as the Supreme Electoral Tribunal still has not - eight days after the "elections" - released the official town by town "results" which make a lie of its chairman's election night claims of 62 percent turnout.
Logic would dictate that the same governments and media organizations that, in the days since, have cited the false turnout numbers as the reason to consider the Honduras "elections" free, fair and transparent, and therefore recognize their "results," now must withdraw that recognition. Some have been played as fools, once again, by an anti-democratic coup regime. Others are willing participants in the dishonest charade.
Freeston's report is a game changer inside Honduras and outside of it as well. It will shortly be translated to Spanish and other languages (as will this written summary of it). The real facts will be distributed far and wide by the Honduran resistance and by pro-democracy voices everywhere on earth. The conclusion is based on hard data and therefore undeniable: The Honduras coup regime cooked the "results" of the November 29 "elections" with knowing falsehood. The real results reveal that abstention and the Resistance-called boycott of the electoral theater won the majority two Sundays ago. The elections are therefore absolutely illegitimate, cannot be recognized, and neither can their "results." And authentically freedom-loving peoples of Honduras and the world will never adhere to them, abide by them, respect them or acknowledge them.
The coup d'etat unleashed last June 28 now has led to a situation where the incoming government that is slated to take power on January 27, 2010 enjoys no more legitimacy or legality than the present coup regime. The Honduras people are without a democratically elected government, and will continue to be without one for some time to come. And any other country's government, or media, that continues to claim to recognize them as legitimate reveals itself to be complicit in the theft of democracy.
Now, kind readers, do your part: break the information blockade, distribute Freeston's video report far and wide, translate it into your own languages, and wave it in the faces of any government official or media organization that attempts to repeat the big lie of majority participation in the Honduras vote last week. They are the usurpers of democracy. And you are its last, best hope.
"I've heard many in this room say that they will not recognize the elections in Honduras. I'm not trying to be a wiseguy, but what does that mean? What does that mean in the real world, not in the world of magical realism?" - W. Lewis Amselem, Obama administration's representative to the Organization of American States
W-w-w-w-hat?!?! An American diplomat actually said that?!? In a meeting of the Organization of American States? Who is president now? Didn't Ronald Reagan die?
A little context: this was said at the OAS during a discussion of upcoming elections in Honduras. All the Latin American countries were announcing that they will not recognize the elections as valid because the current government, the one that will organize the elections, came to power through a military coup. The United States was isolated as the only government in the Americas ready to recognize the election. And Obama's representative decided that might be a good time to ridicule all the Latin American democracies for thinking that their refusal to recognize a government which come to power through military coups mattered.
Well gee, Mr. Amselem, why would it matter whether elections are recognized by the international community? As I recall, there were just elections in Iran and Afghanistan. What does it really matter whether other countries in the region recognize the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which is widely believed to have won the elections through massive electoral fraud? Does it matter who does and doesn't recognize the elections of the American-backed regime in Afghanistan, which was accused of electoral fraud on a similar scale? How about Zimbabwe, which has been teetering on the edge of catastrophe since similarly questionable elections? What exactly was your point, Mr. Amselem? Was it that democracy doesn't mean anything? Or was it that it doesn't matter what Latin American governments do? Or was it that small countries that have neither oil, nukes or terrorists don't matter? We could use a little clarification here.
Just what in the heck is going on in the Obama-Clinton State Department? As the New York Times reported today, the Obama administration's announcement of its policy regarding the upcoming Honduran elections "was celebrated by Republicans as a "reversal" of the administration's policy [and] ignited a storm of criticism from Mr. Obama's allies at home and across Latin America." Just like Hillary's reversal on the administration's position concerning Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories is being celebrated by the Israeli right wing and may trigger the collapse of the Palestinian Authority.
Mr. President, you have some very urgent work to do. First, you need to demand W. Lewis Amselem's head on a pike, now. Just to show that you are at least paying attention.
Beyond that, it is going to be tough. You have dithered on the Honduras coup for half a year, and the elections are just weeks away. Here's an idea: start over. Announce that you are very sorry, but as a way of preparing your State Department for work in Latin America, you asked your diplomatic corps to take some time off to immerse themselves in magical realist literature, and they became so engrossed they simply lost track of time. No one noticed that a year had gone by since your election. But now everyone is ready to put down their novels and return to the real world, in which no one would ever imagine that a government led by Barack Obama would stand as the only government in the western hemisphere supporting coups in Latin America.
