MILITARY COUP IN HONDURAS
by Calvin Tucker
This morning, the Honduran military on behalf of the Honduran ruling class, launched a military coup against the left wing president, Manuel Zelaya. Zelaya, an ally of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, had attempted to push ahead with a constitutional referendum, despite the vote being declared illegal by the right-wing dominated Congress and the Supreme Court. Latest reports suggest that the president has been flown to Costa Rica, whilst it is reported that his family is claiming that he has been beaten.
Venezuela is leading the chorus of condemnation from Latin America, and is expected to informally co-ordinate the response of the Latin American left. The EU and many individual states around the word have also condemned the coup.
In a fresh development, the Venezuelan government has formally announced that their ambassador to Honduras has been kidnapped by armed soldiers, along with the ambassadors of Cuban and Nicaraguan. This move, which demolishes claims by the military that they are acting within the constitution, will further escalate the crisis. It is unclear at this stage how the three affected countries will respond. Foreign embassies are considered sovereign territory under international law, and the illegal seizure of ambassadors could be considered an act of war.
My diplomatic sources tell me that the situation inside Honduras is tense, with supporters of the deposed president beginning to gather outside the presidential palace. Whether the working class is able to mobilise large crowds and overturn the coup remains unclear at this stage.
The United States has denied any involvement in the coup, and Obama has said that he is “deeply concerned” about developments. This statement is consistent with Obama’s declared foreign policy. My view is that the Honduran military is acting without White House authorisation, although possibly with the backing of some sectors of the US state.
The key task now is to isolate the dictatorship by ensuring that no country recognises the regime, to demand the return of president Zelaya, and to support the protests in Honduras.
Please raise the issue in your unions and political organisations, and support any activities called by solidarity movements.
BREAKING NEWS:
According to Bolivarian Circle ‘Louis Riel’ and Hands Off Venezuela, the ambassadors of Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, and the foreign minister of Honduras, Patricia Rodas, have been kidnapped by hooded army personnel in Honduras and have been beaten up.
Comment by John Wight — 28 June, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
DELETED
Comment by Steve R — 28 June, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
Steve R (2) First troll of the thread. Ignore it.
Comment by Nick Wright — 28 June, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor of London, has condemned the military coup in Honduras and demanded the release of the democratically elected President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya.
Ken Livingstone said:
‘I totally condemn the military coup and kidnapping of the democratically elected President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya.
‘President Zelaya was working to free his country from decades hunger and poverty. This military coup is an illegal attempt to use armed force to overturn the course of democracy and social progress chosen by the Honduran people at the polls.
‘The world should unite to stop this attempt to return Latin America to the bloody past of military coups to block the will of the people.
‘I call particularly upon the British government to unreservedly condemn this military coup and to demand the immediate release of President Zelaya and to urge President Obama, who has promised a new era of relations between the US and South America, to do everything in his power to support the release of President Zelaya and restoration of democracy in Honduras.’
Comment by Andy Newman — 28 June, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
Eva Gollinger’s blog has the latest updates.
http://www.chavezcode.com/
It seems that the coupsters are claiming that Zelaya has “resigned” and have even produced an obviously forged resignation letter. Zelaya has spoken live to CNN from Costa Rica confirming that he has not resigned.
The parellels with the 2002 Venezuelan coup are fascinating.
Comment by Calvin — 28 June, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
‘The United States has denied any involvement in the coup, and Obama has said that he is “deeply concerned” about developments. This statement is consistent with Obama’s declared foreign policy. My view is that the Honduran military is acting without White House authorisation, although possibly with the backing of some sectors of the US state.’ I would not be too sure about that lets see what happens next.
Comment by Christy — 29 June, 2009 @ 12:13 am
#7 Interesting stuff, Calvin. I don’t know much about this at all really but Zelaya’s trajectory is quite unusual, isn’t it? I suppose he can be described as a liberal, he is a landowner and businessman, but he has moved leftwards in the last few years since becoming President. and Honduras is now part of this ALBA group of countries that includes Venezuela.
It seems as if this crisis has been precipitated by Zelaya’s attempt to get the constitution changed by referendum so that he can stand again. I’m not sure about this issue really. Do comrades regard this as a progressive sort of change, or might the one-term presidency act as some sort of buffer against despotism?
Perhaps there are other issues at stake here that I have not read about yet? For instance, perhaps Zelaya in his leftward shift has started to redistribute wealth? Or maybe there are links between business people and the drug cartels that Zelaya wants to suppress? Any suggestions?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 9:13 am
Colin Burgon MP on Honduras coup
Speaking on developments in Honduras where elected President Manuel Zelaya was kidnapped by the military earlier today, Colin Burgon MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Venezuela said:
“I condemn the kidnapping and military coup against Manuel Zelaya, the elected president of Honduras.
There can be no return to the military coups and foreign interventions that devastated millions of lives in Latin America over past decades.
Governments across the world must do everything within their power to ensure that no harm comes to President Manuel Zelaya, that he is immediately released and that he is returned to office — as is the wish of the Honduran people”
ENDS
Comment by LJB — 29 June, 2009 @ 9:24 am
Venezuela Solidarity Campaign Statement on military coup in Honduras
http://www.vicuk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=464&Itemid=30
Today (Sunday June 29, 2009) there was to be non-binding national consultation as to whether the people of Honduras agreed to hold referenda at the end of the year for a new Constitional Assembly and for a new constitution. Just on Saturday June 28, President Zelaya was meeting international observers regarding details of today’s (29 June) referendum.
Early this morning -June 29- (about 5:45 am Honduran time) heavily armed units of the military (according to eye witnesses, about 200 soldiers) occupied the presidential palace, arrested democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya in his personal residence, kidnapped him, taking him to an unknow destination. Eye witnesses inform that President Zelaya’s personal residence is surrounded by soldiers. Telesur report that President Zelaya confirmed by phone that he is in Costa Rica.
The military then proceeded to close down Channel 8, the state TV channel to prevent it from informing the population.
President Manuel Zelaya’s supporters are congregating in the streets of the capital and are moving to surround the presidential palace to demand the return of their president.
We totally and absolutely condemn the coup against democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya and demand his immediate and unconditional release as well as the immediater release of anybody else that might have been arrested by the plotters.
We demand:
1.- The immediate restitution of the constitutional order interrupted by the military coup underway in Honduras.
2.- No violence of any kind to be unleashed against the civilian population, or any of the those arrested by those carrying out the coup d’etat. There are worrying reports emerging from Tegucigalpa -Honduras cpital city- of military violence against civilians.
3.- We also urge the UK government to unequivocally condemn the coup and demand the release of President Zelaya, and the immediate return to the constitutional order.
4.- We also call upon President Barack Obama to demonstrate with acts his expressed desire to inaugurate a new period of respectful relations with the republics in Latin America, by also unreservedly condemning the coup d’etat, stating that the US will not recognise any other government in Honduras except that of the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya.
Comment by LJB — 29 June, 2009 @ 9:26 am
#6 Chrissy
Obama is not Bush, and the wing of US imperialism that is promoting enagagement and soft power is in the ascendancy. This coup undermines Obama’s foreign policy doctrine, and had absolutely no chance of securing regional or international recognition. The advance of the left in Latin America, together with the end of the cold war, has created a situation very different from the bloody era of the 70s and 80s.
It makes no political or strategic sense whatsoever for Obama to have authorised this coup, even if one doubts his sincerity.
US imperialism is not dead, far from it. But neither is it monolithic. There are powerful forces around the for-now vanquished neocons who will have welcomed the coup, and possibly had a hand in it. The key point is that they are no longer in the driving seat, although the policy and personnel momentum from the Bush era will take some time to slow.
The smart thing to do is to understand your enemy, divide ‘em and rule ‘em, i.e. just like what they do to us all the time.
This coup is a blunder by a dumb and arrogant local oligarchy who overplayed their hand, and the left can emerge stronger from it, provided that we act and think strategically.
Politically, this is a win-win situation. If the coup is defeated, the left triumphs. If the dictatorship hangs on in the face of global condemnation, then Honduras, a country of relatively minor importance, becomes symbolic of a right wing that can only govern illegitimately through the barrel of a gun. On a human level, that would of course be disater for the Honduran people, and our thoughts and actions should be with them.
Comment by Calvin — 29 June, 2009 @ 10:58 am
US Ambassador to Honduras: “The only president the United States recognizes is President Manuel Zelaya.”
Some great pics here of the spontaneous attempts by people to stop the army.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/06/resistance-and-repression-honduras
Also great first hand reporting and analysis from Al Giordano - http://www.narconews.com/
Comment by Calvin — 29 June, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Calvin, Obama is just what he is - an American President. No he is not Bush or Reagan or even Clinton. Obama’s Foriegn Policy will be complex and nuanced and will reflect his view of the the USA’s domestic interests. Crucially what he says and what he does will often be different things thats part of politics. As a man of the ‘Left’ Obama has considerably more cover than Bush had if he chooses to intervene in the affairs of other nations. The dominant narrative of USA politics is the price of oil people talk about it all the time. Now the Republicans bought a strategy that would ensure cheap oil through the annexation of Iraq and the establishment of a client Government. As USA resources are not infinite this meant a shift of focus from Latin America to the Middle East. It did not work and ended up as a very expensive an non productive enterprise. The military attempts in Afghanistan to provide safe oil conduits are also looking likely to fail. Also as the global power balance shifts China, India and once again Russia cannot be ignored with impunity. Crucialy China will support Iran. The Middle East strategy is in tatters.
What is the USA to do? There is lots of oil in Latin America but the sub continent is no longer as receptive to the USA as it once was. Popular Leftist Governments are in the ascendency and the Latin American poor are everywhere hungry for change so there could be more of these. Should the USA write off the expensive failures of the Middle East strategy and refocus on its ‘backyard’? Now these discussions have certainly taken place around Obama. You can decide for yourself what his eventual position was as you watch how he and the USA choose to deal with the illegal regime in Honduras.
Comment by Christy — 29 June, 2009 @ 11:41 am
I tend to agree with Christy on this. Obama sits at the head of a global empire, a monster which requires constant nourishment in the shape of access to markets and natural resources. The only thing that will change under his administration is the method of achieving the same objectives as under any US administration. The US gets much of the vast amount of oil it requires to feed its economy from Latin America. There is no question that the leftward shift that’s taken place in the region has dealt a huge blow to its hegemony and threatens its economic and strategic interests.
I don’t think we should discount the possibility that Obama has developed the ability to lie and dissemble, just as every one of his predecessors has and did in the past every time their lips moved.
Comment by John Wight — 29 June, 2009 @ 11:59 am
#12 Christy
The dynamics in Latin America have fundamentally changed, and we on the left mislead people and undermine our own credibility by sticking to a narrative that no longer holds.
2002: Venezuelan coup welcomed by the White House: “Now the sitaution will be one of tranquility and democracy”
2009: Honduran coup condemned by the White House within a single day: “The only president the United States recognizes is President Manuel Zelaya.”
The difference between the two statements is the result our collective victory under the leadership of Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia.
Comment by Calvin — 29 June, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
I put some questions at #7. Can anybody help me out here, or at least point me in the right direction?
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
We cannot overlook the fact that Obama also fought the election on the basis of a less unilateralist foreign policy, and fought hard to identify with the progressive aspiartions of Latino voters. I suspect that the White House had nothing to do with this.
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 June, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
for those who can read Castellano, a statement of the Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores (PST) from Honduras: http://www.socialismo-o-barbarie.org/centroamerica_y_caribe/090628_honduras_a_declaraciopst.htm
Comment by Entdinglichung — 29 June, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
Hmmm . . . as nobody seems to know nuffink, or doesn’t want to tell me nuffink, I shall have to blunder on by myself.
Obviously the President (Zelaya) has to be re-instated, that much is clear. But the chap the coup plotters has put in his place is from the same political party as him. And then we have the fact that the Honduras Parliament and the two highest courts in the country have said that the proposed non-binding referendum is constitutionally illegal.
Which makes me wonder what on earth is going on inside this ruling Liberal Party - and how that relates (if it does at all) to the working class movement in Honduras. I am assuming that the Liberal Party has always been to the “left” of the other ruling party, the Nationalists, although that assumption may even be wrong. Is there a “leftist faction” in the Liberal Party in any organised sense, or is this Zelaya chap just a bit of a well-meaning headbanger who has gone and got himself well and truly isolated. I am also wondering what preparations he made, and what precautions he took, to make sure this plebiscite could happen? I dunno the answers to any of these ramblings at the moment.
They seem to have had a civilian government in Honduras since 1979 although the USA certainly had a prevailing influence in the 1980s and used the country for operations against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. But the country’s infrastructure has been badly smashed up by recent hurricanes (”Mitch”)and floods (in 2008), so I imagine that the army has become increasingly powerful again (flood relief, rebuilding infrastructure, control of looters perhaps?).
Anyway, I shall let you all know what else I have found out later today. Carry on.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Stockwell Pete
Zelaya was trying to appeal over the heads of the political and business elites to a desperately poor population which has been cut out of decision making. The instututions of the Honduran state are in the hands of the wealthy and powerful, and they are using those institutions to frustrate the presidency and prevent constitional reform and the convening of a constituent assembly. Zelaya was in office, but not in power - hence the need for constitutional change. The ruling class understood that, so they acted to stop the vote.
A post on ‘comment is free’ set out the facts, so I’ll just reproduce it here verbatim:
Get the facts straight, people.
Zelaya wasn’t acting outside the Honduran constitution.
First, he wanted a referendum on holding a constitutive assembly to change the constitution. This is the required and democratic procedure. The supreme court denied his request.
So Zelaya called a ‘consultative’ referendum - effectively a state-sponsored opinion poll - to ask the population whether they wanted the issue included on ballots for the upcoming presidential election.
The army refused to distribute the ballot papers, and Zelaya fired the head of the army. So the army staged a coup.
It was a _referendum_ folks, a democratic consultation. You’d never guess it, though, from some of the comments above.
If that makes Zelaya a threat to democracy and the military coup the defence of democracy then black is white.
Comment by Calvin — 29 June, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
#19 Thanks for that, Calvin. That’s made things a bit clearer.
But what about Zelaya’s base of support? I am fairly certain that he is not a Bolivarian, or anything as radical as that, but does he command at least majority support within the Liberal Party for radical change?
And I am still not clear in my own mind why changing the constitution to allow him to stand again is particularly progressive. Aren’t there other “Zelaya-ists” who could be President after him? The reason that I am concerned about this is that I was wondering whether the one-term rule was introduced back in 1979 (when civilian rule re-commenced) to prevent the emergence of new dictators in the future. So it might be considered as a democratic gain in the Honduran context.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
#20
STockWell pete
Surely the electorate ought to be able to decide whether a president can serve another term. How is it democratic to bar someone who people want to elect just because he or she has done the job before?
Comment by Andy Newman — 29 June, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Whatever the one term rule was designed for, it’s practical effect is to create a weak president (elected directly by the population) and a strong supreme court (stuffed with oligarchs) and strong legislature (stuffed with representatives of the establishment, and bribeable).
In other words, the one term limit makes radical change very difficult, even when the left wins the support of the people for change.
“Independent institutions” in Latin America = Institutions independent from the working class and democratic control, and run by and on behalf of the vicious oligarchy.
Further, personalities matter hugely in Latin America and left leaders who commands popular support are not churned out on a conveyor belt every 4 years in tune with the electoral cycle. It’s all about stopping the left gaining any traction.
Comment by Calvin — 29 June, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
#21 Yes, of course. If they want to change their constitution, then fine. It just struck me that the one-term rule was quite strict and I was wondering if it had been the demand of an earlier generation of activists i.e. when civilian rule was resumed again in 1979.
Also, does Zelaya have some indication that “the people” want him to stand again, or is he just flying a kite? I am just trying to understand how Honduran society works - I am not making any definite political statements here.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
#22 OK, gotcha. Thanks.
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
There are some more details in this article by Jorge Martin.
He stresses the fact that Zelaya was proposing a Constituent Assembly and had already carried out limited reforms which challenged the power of the rich.
But in Banana Republics like Honduras, even fighting for limited reforms has often been regarded as sufficient cause for the military to topple a liberal reformist government.
Unfortunately, Zelaya didn’t control sufficient forces to challenge the military hierarchy and carry through his planned referendum, so he has called for a mass mobilisation of the population.
http://www.marxist.com/defeat-coup-honduras-mobilise-general-strike.htm
Comment by prianikoff — 29 June, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
#25 Aha, that is a very good article, prianikoff. So Zelaya is moving in a Bolivarist direction . . .
“Zelaya, popularly known as Mel, won the presidential elections in 2005 as candidate for the Honduras Liberal Party, narrowly defeating his main opponent from the National Party. Despite being a wealthy landowner, the political polarisation in this small and poor Central American country pushed him to take some measures in favour of the poor, the peasants and the workers, adopting “Bolivarianism” as his model. He soon lost the support of his own centre-right Liberal Party and was forced to ally himself with the organisations of workers and peasants.”
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 29 June, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
picket tomorrow…please support
EMERGENCY PICKET AGAINST COUP IN HONDURAS! TUESDAY 30 JUNE, 5PM, HONDURAS EMBASSY, 115 GLOUCESTER PLACE
1) EMERGENCY PICKET AGAINST COUP IN HONDURAS! – PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY
Tuesday 30 June, 5pm
at the Honduras Embassy, 115 Gloucester Place, London, W1U 6JT.
An emergency picket has been called outside the Honduran Embassy in response to yesterday’s coup against Honduras’ progressive elected president (see VSC statement and further information below.) Please come and show your support for social progress and democracy in Latin America.
· For more information contact info@venezuelasolidarity.co.uk. Called by Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (formerly VIC), and supported by Unite London and Eastern Region.
Comment by Derek Wall — 29 June, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
Why is there all this nonsense about the “one-term limit” being the issue? That wasn’t on the referendum ballot. Only the question of a constituent assembly was.
Comment by Daphne — 30 June, 2009 @ 12:00 am
Interesting article and debate here . . .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/29/honduras-coup-hugo-chavez?commentpage=1
Comment by Stockwell Pete — 30 June, 2009 @ 10:00 am
Daphne at No 28 is right. At http://www.borev.net/ they are commenting on the claims that there was going to be a referendum to abolish term limits:
“It was probably too much work to like, bother to read the text of the actual ballot question, which translates to:
“Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?”
Wait, where was the part about the part about term limits?”
Comment by Matthew Stiles — 30 June, 2009 @ 10:04 am