Wednesday, July 22, 2009


President Zelaya is giving a press conference right now, presumably from Nicaragua. About one hour ago, President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica presented a new proposal, called the "San Jose Agreement" of 12 points, adding and modifying his previous 7-point proposal that was rejected by the coup regime on Sunday. The 12 points, available in Spanish here, incorporated several of the requests of the coup regime into Arias' original proposal.

Specifically, point number one was changed from calling for President Zelaya's immediate return to power to become a call for a "government of unity and reconciliation" to be composed of members of the coup regime together with representatives from each political party. Zelaya would have been returned to the presidency, but with his hands completely tied. The proposal again called for amnesty for the coup regime, and, in an inference to the coup regime's allegations against President Zelaya, also called for amnesty to be granted to him as well. This factor clearly legitimates the coup regime's theories.

Another point incredibly called on the Zelaya government and supporters to refrain from convening a constitutional assembly, directly or indirectly, and in fact also ordered a refrain from even holding any kind of consultation, survey or opinion poll on any issue remotely related to constitutional form. This is absolutely outrageous because no government has the right to usurp the people's sovereign right to choose their form and model of government. This is not a right that can be transferred or taken away, it is inalienable.

Another point called for presidential elections to be held in October instead of November, and then again prohibited the people from protesting such elections, regardless of outcome or process, or engaging in any kind of civil disobedience, insurrection or any kind of manifestation of discontent regarding the political process in the country. That is also a completely outrageous and unacceptable usurpation of the people's innate right to protest and manifest their will.

There were a series of other points which, once I translate (or someone else does ;-) ) the "San Jose Agreement", can be analyzed. For now, I just wanted to update on today's situation.

Again, no meetings were held today, just the proposal set forth by Oscar Arias to "resolve" the situation. The Zelaya delegation immediately rejected the agreement, declaring the mediation as failed and called upon the United Nations Security Council, the Central American Integrated System (SICA) and the Organization of American States (OAS) to convene immediately - tonight if possible - and implement extreme measures of pressure against the coup regime in Honduras.

The coup regime's delegation rejected Arias' proposal as well, but still based on their original disagreement relating to the return of President Zelaya to power.

Today, the insane coup Foreign Minister called on Venezuela to recognize their regime, stating that it was "inconceivable" that neighbor nations would not recognize their government as legitimate. The coup regime is being recognized now by both the right wing governments in Panama and Colombia, as well as the United States, in its own, underhanded way.

By the way, the leading military figure in the coup, School of the Americas graduate General Romeo Vasquez, is in Miami today, invited to speak at some evangelical conference funded by the Cuban mafia. So, the State Department hasn't revoked his visa, obviously, despite his clear role in kidnapping - at gun point - and forcing into exile the democratically elected president of Honduras. Yet another clear indication of Washington backing the coup.

Zelaya is calling for insurrection in Honduras. Personally, I think that is the only way to resolve this situation with dignity.


Roger Milbrandt said...

This is outrageous: not your commentary, but Arias's proposal. I hate to say it but Arias's notion of mediation seems to be the following: first, find out which side is intransigent, then, give the intransigent side everything it wants while giving the shaft to anyone who seems disposed to accept a compromise. Thank God the Zelaya people finally found the guts to say "no."
Zelaya must now act, something he has not done since 5 July, and not too shrewdly then. Let us hope he acts wisely and courageously.

NuestraAmericaNews said...

Damn now we have Colombia, Panama, and Honduras. Zeyala should have never even waited for the U.S. and the negotater there was nothing to negotaite from the start. A couple re coup simple as that. And this time spend lets of money on defense among ALBA after this coup. Increase military spending 30 fold. Make sure that ALBA targets Colombia than Panama. Don't be suprised if Peru doesn't jump at the chance either. But first strike at the coup second take Colombia.

titozone said...


On one hand, the "Golpistas" have exposed themselves as intransigent. When I read Zelaya´s acceptance of the first 7 points (18/Jul), I got mad at him but then I realized that these cavemen act and then think. On the other hand, they just gave people more reasons to be angry at them. We´ll reclaim LA PATRIA of 7.5 million people, soon.

marxist-socialist said...

Dear Dr. Eva Golinger: i am just writting to you to keep motivating you to keep with your revolutionary-blogger, because as Karl Marx that the task of the thinkers and intellectuals is not just to explain the world, but to change the world. And Nietzsche another great philosopher said that we should be active-nihilists, not passive-nihilists. The passive-nihilist accepts this reality like it is, because he is too weak to revolt against it. But the active-nihilist is closer to his ideal of the superman, the type of person who destroys and defies the current morality and values. So don't worry about the measly insults and hatred against you by dumb people. Specially by the middle-classes. According to class-psychology and Marx. The middle-classes are one of the most reactionary classes in any revolution. Because as long as people are economically stable, they will do any thing to side with the status quo and to conserve the system. The middle bourgeoise classes are real counter-revolutionary, that's why most hardcore Democrat voters and Republican voters are middle class bourgeoise citizens with stable jobs, and stable lifestyles. Only those people who are really beating the bullets economically and who have nothing to lose but a whole world to win like Karl Marx said are the ones who are willing to revolt against this capitalist oligarchic system.

Here is a link to Marxist analysis on Middle Classes:

Marx and the Middle Classes


Glen said...

Hola Eva,
The last time I tried to leave a comment, your system stumped me, but I'll try again. Philosophically, we're generally together, but while you seem to be thinking in clear present tense about Venezuela and ALBA and US meddling, your very attractive dream for Honduras is in past tense - in the 80's. I was deeply involved with the Sandinista revolution in the 80's, so I can relate. But in the 00's, Hugo and others are succeeding in a different way. There's a lot of satisfaction in dreaming of a successful 80's kind of uprising, but it wouldn't be so nice if it failed. My own suggestion for a dignified resolution to the Honduran situation is posted on my website, -Glen Roberts

El Ch� said...

Man, disregard that last commentator. I don't care if he was Daniel Ortega's personal bodyguard. We get a lot of this talk these days... but it should be clear enough that such people have not only drawn the wrong conclusions out of History -- they can't even read the present situation right.

Whether an 'insurrection' is armed or not, or whether it just takes a mass, general strike to topple a rotten regime, is wholly dependent on the concrete circumstances of the moment; the 'array of forces', etc. And people like this who simply wave away the armed struggle of the `80s as if it was all just some terrible, avoidable mistake, not only impugn the hard struggle and sacrifice of the participants of those struggles, but also give short shrift to the possibilities and realities of the present moment. In spite of their self-declared "realism".

What is different today from the `80s for instance, is not only that we don't have the albatross of the stalinist Soviet Union around our necks, but that we have the VERY real support of the ALBA confederation now. This is not peanuts. It's a big, fat, new fact that people like the above commentator glibly overlook in their disdain for being associated with the losers of the last set of struggles. That was all "so `80s", huh..? Besides overlooking the fact that we have the will of the honduran masses driving this thing. No small matter. At all.

So please disregard people like this guy. The Left, unfortunately, is still full of people who think in this defeatist way -- and take the easy way out by referring to complex, evolving social relations which don't even apply -- like the "Bolivarian Process" -- which they are clearly mis-judging as well. In fact it's all far too early in "the process" for anyone to be talking about "peaceful" roads to anywhere -- let alone socialism. If it comes to forces of arms here -- we must support the honduran masses to the hilt.

Socialismo o Muerte.

Diana Barahona said...

On July 9, the Council on Foreign Relations, which is the principal policy think-tank for the US government, published an interview with Kevin Casas-Zamora, former second vice president (for one year) under the current administration of Oscar Arias and now a fellow with a US think tank called the Brookings Institute. He laid out what he thought should be the conditions set on President Zelaya in order for the United States and the putschists to allow him to return.

What must be understood is that Casas was not speaking for himself, but for the US foreign policy establishment, of which President Obama is the head. Although liberals such as Nikolas Kozloff have twisted themselves into contortions to find some other party to hold accountable for US foreign policy, the only one who has the power to set policy is Obama. And we know that according to The New York Times on June 29, "the White House" was fully apprised that Obama's ambassador, Hugo Llorens was in discussions with the coup plotters about ways they could arrest Zelaya and remove him from office.

So the Casas interview set out publicly for the first time Washington's conditions for Zelaya. First and foremost, he said that Zelaya would have to distance himself from Chavez: "A good part of the Honduran elite and those supporting Micheletti live in absolute fear of Hugo Chavez, so for Zelaya to stand any chance of going back to being president, he has to put some distance between himself and Hugo Chavez."

The rest of the conditions are the same ones that we are seeing formulated by Arias: that Zelaya have no power of his own, that he share power with the putschists, and that the putschists receive amnesty for all future crimes. This one is tantamount to a red light, sent to Goriletti by Washington, that any repression he ordered against the people was acceptable by Washington, and that the members of the coup regime would face no prosecution for violating human rights.

Here are Casas's exact words:

"My sense of what the international community is demanding, and what is correct, is first of all that Zelaya should return to the presidency, though not necessarily to power. The presidency and power are two different things. Number two, he has to end his plans to amend the constitution, which won't be much of a problem. Number three, he has to put some distance between himself and Chavez. That's essential. Number four, there has to be some kind of power-sharing agreement, whereby Zelaya remains at the helm of the government but some other people chip-in in the main decisions that are to be made between now and the next election in November. Number five, there has to be some kind of amnesty, for lack of a better word, where everybody turns a blind eye on the pervasive illegal behavior of all the parties involved, because all of them have acted with illegal behavior and have acted with total disregard for the rule of law."

marxist-socialist said...


Stronger Measures are Needed

21st Century Coups d'Etat


The consolidation of power through brute force represents a serious step backward for the region. How is it possible that a coup d'etat could take place and survive in the 21st century? This is the question that the international community faces after the coup d'etat that Honduras suffered on June 28. On that day, the Honduran Armed Forces kidnapped the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, and forced him onto a flight bound for Costa Rica. The Organization of American States (OAS), the UN General Assembly, the U.S. government, and every Latin American nation have denounced the coup and demanded the immediate reinstatement of President Zelaya. The international diplomatic response was strong and swift, leaving the de facto regime in Honduras isolated. Many believed that this response would be sufficient to force Roberto Micheletti, the "president" imposed by the architects of the coup, to renounce his claim to rule by force.

It has been several decades since Central America emerged from a tragic and bloody era of military dictatorships, in several cases supported by the U.S. government. Times have changed. President Obama united with the global call to restore democracy in the impoverished Central American nation of Honduras. The country has been hit with economic sanctions through the temporary closing of borders with neighboring Central American countries, the freezing of loans from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the suspension of oil imports from Petrocaribe, and the suspension of USD $16.5 million in U.S. aid, among other sanctions.

However, the coup leaders are stubbornly holding on to power. They did not allow the plane carrying President Zelaya and the president of the UN General Assembly, Miguel D'Escoto, to land in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa on July 7. Micheletti has stated that he will remain in power until elections slated for November, and will never permit Zelaya to return as president. There is currently a curfew in place across the country, military roadblocks in various regions, and arrest warrants filed against leaders of unions and campesino, indigenous, and human rights movements. Security forces have killed at least three people. Social movements continue to rally in the streets and their numbers and degree of organization have increased daily as they fight for the return of President Zelaya and his right to consult the public on a constitutional assembly. It was this issue that sparked the coup, implemented by the armed forces, and conservative politicians and businessmen.

In an attempt to diffuse the situation, President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica began mediating talks between the two sides. It soon became clear that the mediation effort offered little hope of success, since Micheletti refused any possibility of allowing President Zelaya's return—an obligatory condition for Zelaya, the international community, and the citizens' movements of Honduras. Micheletti returned to Honduras after just one day of negotiations, refusing to meet with Zelaya and leaving behind a delegation that, because of the intransigence of the coup leaders, does not have the power to advance the talks. The second round of talks the weekend of July 18 produced the same result. Given that the regime is isolated, sanctioned, and being confronted by its own people, how is it possible that the coup is now entering its fourth week, tenaciously maintaining a control that has been widely declared illegitimate?