Se desperto la ONU -- por fin

De http://www.hondudiarioh.com/l/content/destituci%C3%B3n-de-zelaya-fue-constitucional-onu

Pongo el articulo entero, porque parece que ahora no funciona el link. En resumen la ONU dice que la destitucion de Zelaya sii fue constitucional. O sea, lo que he dicho desde el 28 de junio.


"Destitución de Zelaya fue Constitucional": ONU
Enviado por Redacción Hondu... el Mar, 13/10/2009 - 18:22.

* Nacionales Portada
* Conciliación


Expertos de la ONU concluyen que no hubo Golpe de Estado en Honduras


El estudio de la crisis en Honduras coincide con el realizado por la Biblioteca del Congreso de Estados Unidos
*** El estudio de la crisis política en Honduras fue refrendado con información oficial que recibieron los expertos de la ONU en su visita al país, la semana pasada que coincidió con los cancilleres de la OEA.
Washington, Estados Unidos.
Un estudio del Departamento de Asuntos Políticos de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) sobre la causas que provocaron la crisis en Honduras, concluyó que la destitución del ex presidente Manuel Zelaya, "fue constitucional y de acuerdo las leyes del país", confirmaron fuentes oficiales de ese organismo.

Esta version fue conocida oficialmente éste martes por altos funcionarios de la ONU, que también coincide con el estudio elaborado por la Biblioteca del Congreso de Estados Unidos, que analizó por su lado, la situación que generó y mantiene en una crisis política en Honduras.

El documento del estudio del Departamento de Asuntos Políticos de la ONU, se fundamento con otra información (la otra verdad) recibida en la última visita a Honduras, donde convergieron con representantes de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) y aprovecharon para “conocer otros escenarios que no estaban claros”.

La información sobre esta resolución colegiada de estos expertos, fue proporcionada a hondudiario.com, por fuentes oficiales que coligen las estrategias y presiones que promueven la ex canciller Patricia Rodas y el representante permanente de Venezuela en el Consejo Permanente para pedir más sanciones contra Honduras y exigir la restitución del ex presidente Zelaya, que advirtió “un ultimátum” para éste 15 de octubre.

“Estos señores están presionando y han invocado a una Asamblea Especial ante el Consejo de Seguridad, pero no se ha dado ninguna respuesta hasta la fecha, porque estaban esperando los resultados de sus propios estudios sobre la situación en Honduras, que ha mantenido dividido a Washington”, refirió el entrevistado.

“La conclusión del informe dice claramente que la destitución del ex presidente Zelaya fue constitucional. Lo que confirma que no hubo golpe de Estado y refuerza la posición del presidente Barack Obama, que nunca se precipitó a juzgar la situación hondureña, como lo hizo la secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton que corrió a condenar al pueblo hondureño, presionada por los cancilleres de la OEA”, agregó.

Las exigencias de la ex canciller Rodas en Washington, según los expertos, se han fundamentado en pedir “a la comunidad internacional más sanciones contra el régimen de facto”, y reclamó además “firmeza” a los países para que no reconozcan al gobierno golpista bajo ningún concepto.

“La mayoría de los Estados miembros de las Naciones Unidas, después de conocer otros escenarios e información, ahora coinciden en que no apoyarían ninguna resolución de la Asamblea General de la ONU que solicitara sanciones para Honduras”, resumió al referirse a este estudio del Departamento de Asuntos Políticos de la ONU, que concluyó que la destitución del ex presidente Zelaya fue constitucional, que el mismo estudio coincide en la mayoría de los puntos con el estudio elaborado por la Biblioteca del Congreso de Estados Unidos. hondudiario

Some brief thoughts on Honduras

So, this past week we’ve been inundated with news about Honduras, the Central American country wedged between Ortega’s Nicaragua, Funes’ El Salvador and Colom’s Guatemala. I woke up Sunday morning early to get some work in before church, and I had some direct messages on my Twitter account sent from friends throughout Latin America. I had stupidly forgotten to change the settings on my phone, so as the messages came in, the incessant beeping woke me up.

Ashamed as I am to say it, I’ve grown extraordinarily frustrated and jaded. Yes, 24 and jaded; sad, no? World events don’t quite affect me like they used to. But for some reason this did, which is weird because I’ve never been there, nor do I have friends or family who currently live there. I suppose to a certain extent it’s because in the past I’ve worked on projects in various parts of Honduras. However, for something to get me back to writing after months of absence, there must be something more.

The purpose of this entry is not to give a play-by-play analysis of the events following Sunday; my good friend Fausta has written what is, by far, the best summary and analysis in English on this. If you haven’t read her entries, stop reading this right now and go check out what she has to say. (See here, here, here, and here.) For someone's perspective who is living in Honduras, see here. Rather, I want to focus a bit on several aspects of the issue of Honduras: first, I want to talk a little bit about the actions of Mel and the subsequent actions of the Honduran opposition. I also want to touch on the international community, particularly the members who allegedly stand for democracy and the Rule of Law, and their reaction to this.

Now, like most things in the international arena, events tend to become politicized and key details are often lost in the weeds. In the case of Honduras, a country followed by very few prior to Sunday afternoon, the lack of background information and historical and political context certainly did not help political pundits have a complete idea as to what was really going on in the period prior to Zelaya’s ousting. In this instance, I think said lack of information can greatly distort, or at the very least be a huge detriment, in understanding what happened and its repercussions.

Full disclosure: I am not a student of Honduran history, political or otherwise. However, working on projects in the country has permitted me to study the country’s political dynamics perhaps more than the average Joe.

Mel and his opposition: actions and their consequences

Nearing the end of his presidential term, Mel Zelaya casually suggested the use of a poll which would ask the question if a cuarta urna, a fourth ballot box, could be used to determine if presidential term limits could be removed, permitting re-election, as a referendum question on the 29 November 2009 presidential elections. (Note: the way the non-binding poll was packaged and presented, it would be benign, merely gauging the pueblo’s feeling as to if the cuarta urna could be included.) Following the transition back to democracy, Latin American constitutions went to great pains to limit the number of terms a president could be in power; wounds left by dictatorships lead by the military or other caudillos (strongmen) were still fresh. The Honduran constitution went beyond what most other constitutions stipulated: the article prohibiting presidential re-election is known as an articulo petreo, which essentially translates to an article set in stone; that is to say, it cannot be changed. However, following the lead of his fellow ALBA members, constitutionality was a mere suggestion in Zelaya’s mind, and he continued to push the issue among the Honduran polity. Given that Honduras lived through military dictatorship for the better part of three decades, from the 1950s to the early 1980s, Hondurans are more than well aware of the consequences of individuals who seek to remain in power, by any means possible.

Fast forward to 2009: Honduras has become somewhat of an anomaly in the region (in a good way) in the sense that not only is there separation of powers between the governmental institutions, but the people are not overly averse to the military, despite its role in the country’s tumultuous past. The Supreme Court ruled that Mel’s proposal to hold a poll was unconstitutional, and forbade that it take place. The Honduran Congress and members of the National and Liberal parties agreed with the Supreme Court and did not support Mel’s poll. (Note: Mel is a member of the Liberal party; members of his party were vehemently against this poll.) In typical Latin American fashion, when all else fails, go to the military and see if you can get them on your side to push through your agenda. The problem, if it might be called that, is that Honduras does not have the resources of Venezuela. Mel could never buy off the Honduran military the way Chávez has so shamelessly done with the Venezuelan Armed Forces. Long story short, the military tells Mel no, they will not participate in the poll because it is unconstitutional, and their duty is to uphold the Honduran constitution. Acting like a petulant child, Mel fires the head of the Armed Forces, Gen. Vasquez Velasquez. But, this backfired; the heads of the branches of the Armed Forces tendered their resignation, categorically demonstrating that no one in Honduras’ military establishment supported the president’s move, as they were fully conscious of the fact that constitutional changes can only be approved by the legislative branch, and then a constituent assembly would be convened to rule on said proposal initiated by the legislature. So, Mel is entre la espada y la pared, as we like to say, and yet continues to express his desire to carry out his poll. He sends his supporters to raid the areas where the polls – which some allege were printed in Venezuela, as no Honduran printer would print, knowing that their participation would be seen as collusion, and thus, illegal – were located; Honduran press reported Venezuelan aircraft entering Honduran territory (because Venezuela clearly has its act together…); Mel’s rhetoric became more politicized.

Now is where things could get a bit hazy, particularly if you’re relying just on US media outlets. The way some have described Sunday morning, you would think that what happened was akin to Pinochet’s military coup d’etat against Salvador Allende in 1973 Chile. To the contrary, there were no tanks in the streets; the military had not taken over the capital city; the sitting president did not die. Members of the Honduran military, armed with an edict issued by the Supreme Court, supported by the Congress, Attorney General’s office, and Electoral Council, presented this to Zelaya in the early morning hours at Zelaya’s residence in Tegucigalpa. Zelaya was escorted to an Air Force Base and flown out of the country, to San Jose, Costa Rica. At a press conference with Costa Rican president Arias, Zelaya told the world that he had been kidnapped from his home while still in his pajamas, condemning the military coup realized against him.

But was this a military coup, in the Latin American sense? I would argue no. Sure, the military was initially the most visible element, as members of the Armed Forces were those who presented Zelaya with the court order and removed him from him home, but this wasn’t Vasquez Velasquez’s revenge. At no point did the Honduran military become the government, and as far as I can tell based on reading news and information from my contacts in Honduras and other Central American countries, that was never their intent. Wonkish as it sounds, I would be more inclined to call it a constitutional coup. The Honduran Congress then took what they felt, according to the constitution, to be the appropriate measures of removing Zelaya (the Honduran constitution does not have a provision for impeachment as the US constitution does) and installing a provisional president, who happened to be the president of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti.

All right, so there’s a brief overview of Sunday. Before going any further, I want to point out the politicization of this day. I am very disturbed how many pundits on both the left and right are letting their personal politics get in the way of common sense. Some will immediately condemn this, because a democratically elected – notice I did not say a democratically behaving – leader was removed from his position as president. They completely disregard, or are at the very least willingly ignorant, to the fact that Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution, and when the institutional checks moved to restrain executive power, he thought himself above the law, a la Chávez, and moved to push through his initiative. “But he is a popularly elected leader!” some cry. Yes; so were many of history’s despots, but I would be hard-pressed to find many people who defend some of the most notorious… On the other hand, there are those who immediately praise Zelaya’s ousting because they do not agree with his politics or because they see him to be a Chávez puppet. While I personally believe both are true, because the Honduran institutions are truly separate and the constitution provides for mechanisms to remove a seated president, I am not entirely sure that the opposition to Zelaya carried out his removal in the best way. Ideally, he would have been removed and tried by the court system, and not given an opportunity to leave the country, but hindsight is 20/20. The most severe consequence of this is almost Orwellian in nature, where authoritarian Hugo Chávez is being hailed as a democrat because his opinion coincides with that of the OAS (which is, IMHO, on par with the uselessness of the UN) and other international bodies and governments. This emboldening of Chávez has certainly bolstered his ego – as if he needs it – and lent credibility to his position, as it is shared by every government in the world, save Taiwan.

Outside looking in

Given that we live in a globalized world in which 24-hour news networks grow more dominant in our society, nothing exists in a vacuum. In some respects, this can be a blessing, as few people in the world can claim ignorance on world events; on the other hand, it can be somewhat of a curse, as the bombardment of information can be overwhelming. Said bombardment, however, allows us to see the myriad opinions of many world leaders in a 45-second news clip. The reaction to the events in Honduras is no exception, as many world leaders were quick to opine, condemning the actions taken against Zelaya. Rather than focus on individual opinions expressed by world leaders, I want to touch on the hypocrisy exhibited by some who are getting the most press.

Hugo Chávez

Where to start with Chávez… His declarations should come as no surprises whatsoever to anyone who has functioning neurons. What might be a bit more surprising, though, is the shameless spin and hypocrisy of his statements, and the way international organizations were swift to agree with them. For those of us who follow Venezuela, we’re numb to the fact that any problem that occurs in Latin America is a plot crafted by the CIA and other elements of the Empire. The US is inevitably meddling in every single thing that goes wrong in Venezuela, for which we are the proverbial whipping boy of his weekly, vulgarity-filled, diarrhea-of-the-mouth monologues, also known as Alo, Presidente. Curious, then, that one might assume that Chávez is so against any kind of interference – lest we forget that he led a bloody failed coup in February 1992 and orchestrated another from prison in November of the same year – and yet he is the first to get on his soapbox, declare that he will topple the provisional government led by Micheletti, by sending Venezuelan troops if necessary. (I’ll let that sink in for a second.) So, apparently US involvement – real or imagined – is always bad, but Venezuelan involvement is more than okay. Right, that’s what I thought. For serious democrats who value individual rights for all citizens, regardless of their political persuasion, the hypocrisy of such a statement should be an embarrassment, considering that so many people around the world feel that Chávez indeed is a democrat, despite his constant trampling of the constitution he and his government wrote.

OAS and Insulza

I don’t care for the OAS. At all. The best friend and I joke that the OAS building in DC would make lovely apartments, which would certainly be much better use than what it currently functions as. While perhaps noble in its early period, the OAS has become a club of governments, and indeed, behave as such. Similar to the chavista attitude colored by hypocrisy, the OAS, led by Insulza, routinely overlook political situations which violate the Inter-American Democratic Charter in countries which such a pronunciation against the leader might not be viewed as being politically correct or beneficial. One needn’t look beyond Insulza’s behavior: once he realized he would not receive the Chilean presidential nomination for Chile’s upcoming elections, he realized that he would have to acquiesce more to the wills of the member states, particularly cash cow Venezuela. Thus, the explanation for the OAS’ lack of action against Chávez’s routine abuse of power makes a bit more sense. Each individual is entitled to pick his or her friends and defend them; that is part of human nature. However, the functionaries involved in the OAS are not acting as individuals, rather, as representatives of governments. For the oldest regional international organization in the world, its behavior is reprehensible and in stark contrast to what it alleges to stand for.

Barack Obama

Now, I am not a huge fan of the vast majority of Obama’s policies. There are several fundamental problems which I think need to be addressed. First, his statements put an excessive emphasis on the fact that Zelaya was democratically elected, but do not at all discuss the way in which, as late (particularly following Honduras joining ALBA), Zelaya has hardly behaved like a democrat. Democracy is not just about being elected; the essence of democracy is what happens between elections. Is constitutionality upheld? Is the Rule of Law respected? Are minority and/or opposition rights respected? Is there freedom of expression/press/religion/speech? This once again proves to me that the Obama administration has no Latin America strategy; Restrepo has certainly not lived to any expectations many in Washington might have had for him. Second, there is a touch of hypocrisy in the statement. Honduran institutions, in accordance with the constitution, and with support of the people, moved against a leader who was abusing power in his attempt to rise above the law. Wasn’t a large part of the Obama campaign “change,” particularly from the actions of the Bush administration where we heard, on repeat ad nauseum, that Bush and institutions sympathetic to Bush acted above the law? Lastly, and perhaps most disturbing, why was Obama so quick to criticize Honduras and the provisional Micheletti government, joining the chorus of condemnation with the ilk of Ortega, Correa, Chávez, and Insulza, and yet could not manage to emit a statement regarding the horrendous abuses committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and even then, expressing his profound desire to continue dialogue? The naïveté is truly disgusting and dangerous.

For such men and institutions who constantly remind us of the need for national sovereignty and self-determination, I find it extraordinarily curious – especially in the case of Chávez – that his will seems to supersede the will of the Honduran people when it comes to the Honduran government and its functions. Has political correctness become kowtowing, signifying that citizens are now to be beholding to the will of impotent and highly politicized international organizations? If that is the case, the reaction to Honduras is a harbinger of things to come.

HOY: Un mundo sin mordaza

No se les olviden que HOY, en más de treinta países, hay protestas en contra de la censura. Iniciada por un grupo de venezolanos comprometidos con la libertad de expresión en su país esta protesta es una muestra a nivel mundial de un no contundente al cierre caprichoso de medios de comunicación.

Ha sido difundido un mail que plantea reprogramar la protesta; NO CAIGAN EN LA TRAMPA, acabo de hablar con uno de los coordinadores y sigue programada para el día de hoy.

Para los que nos encontramos en DC: la protesta se llevará a cabo a las 12:00, frente a la OEA (el edificio administrativo) que queda en 1889 F St., NW. Si quieren andar en metro la estación más cercana sería Farragut West (líneas azul/naranja); les aconsejo que NO anden en la línea roja si la pueden evitar, por la demora restante del choque del lunes.

Obviamente muchos lectores no viven en DC; favor revisar la página SIN MORDAZA. Si tiene cuenta Facebook chequea aquí para mayor información.

Ah, the little things that make me smile

If it's not my favorite political cartoonist Manuel Guillén (who, by the way, e-mailed me a few weeks ago and I nearly had a heart attack), it'd have to be from my favorite comic strip Pearls Before Swine.

In today's edition...

Un mundo sin mordaza

Acabo de recibir un mail de una amiga mía, que anuncie las actividades que se llevarán a cabo en Washington el próximo 25 de junio. A continuación...

En Washington DC, nos concentraremos, entre las 12:00 PM a las 2:00 PM, FRENTE A LA SEDE PRINCIPAL DE LA OEA (17th Street & Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC), donde entregaremos un documento que expresa nuestro rechazo al cierre de GLOBOVISIÓN en Venezuela y de cualquier otro medio de comunicación en el mundo.

Los asistentes llevaremos UNA MORDAZA ROJA como símbolo de violación a la libertad de expresión. Abajo encontrarán la convocatoria e información que pueden distribuir entre sus contactos.

No duden en contactarme en caso de requerir más información. Para aquellos que me han preguntado de qué forma pueden colaborar, creo que es importante imprimir el material que se encuentra en www.sinmordaza.org y llevarlo el día de la protesta. Para aquellos que puedan, les agradecería infinitamente que me ayuden con la impresión del material y con algunas “mordazas rojas”.

Un millón de gracias a todos en nombre de los organizadores y de los demás coordinadores.

A joke for this dreary Tuesday morning

Since the weather is kind of nasty here in DC and I am ridiculously busy finishing up my term paper -- T-10 days! -- posting will again cease for a while, but I did want to post this joke, which was sent to me by a co-worker, whose last name is also of Polish origin:

A Polish immigrant went to the DMV to apply for a driver's license.

First, of course, he had to take an eyesight test. The optician showed him a card with the letters:

'C Z W I X N O S T A C Z.'

"Can you read this?" the optician asked.

"Read it?" the Polish guy replied, "I know the guy."

La gripa sandinista

Sin comentarios :)