Honduras: I'm Confused

I appreciate this posting. I have been watching the Americas south of Mexico for some time. Thought one: School of the Americas (also a similar one is being run out of El Salvador now). Thought two: regional consolidation, Honduras just happens to be a useful staging ground. A lot of Americans scoff at the Latino world as backward when it comes to government, but the very divergence of power, and not exactly lining up to be the lackeys for the worlds elite is actually a great benefit.

The "Democracy Now" interview with Zelaya was a giant mess, I thought - but a useful one. It is useful because it is further evidence that he cannot deliver a decent answer on any significant question, and Goodman -with perhaps an exception or two- failed to ask any obvious follow-up question that might actually shed light on “who benefits”. Virtually every single Zelaya answer is fraught with problems, either historically, legally, or logically.

As he has noted elsewhere, he favors the San Jose Accords yet again clearly states he wants the coup perpetrators to stand trial for their acts - apparently overlooking the second principle of the Arias proposal, namely “Amnesty” (saying contradictory things has never posed a problem for Zelaya, though it goes a long way toward explaining his current problem). Zelaya wants to frame the debate in terms of rule-of-law, when his present situation is due primarily to his own unwillingness to adhere to any reasonable vision of rule-of-law, and it isn‘t clear he will win any rule of law debate anyway. But, that doesn’t really matter much since he has repeatedly indicated he will gladly stand trial any time - just not under the Honduran Supreme Court, any other high-level Honduran Court, Honduran Military leadership, Honduran Congress, current coup-President, nor even the next elected President of Honduras. This is not a willingness to accept anything at all, except perhaps more grandstanding as he wants and will only accept a non-Honduran solution to a Honduran problems, created by a Honduran - namely him.

The elections are key to the resolution of the current Honduran situation. They may or may not come off as internationally acceptable without Zelaya participation in some way, shape or form - due mostly to outside forces, not necessarily Zelaya. Zelaya has already condemned the elections that haven’t even started yet. He has, again, claimed that the two candidates come November, not only helped plan the coup but participated in it, and that though they need an election to move forward there is no viable election, really. However, if the coup government joined forces with the upcoming candidates, then what real benefit is there to replacing the coup administration with one of two coup-participants, as they all apparently believe the same thing. Zelaya’s own party is one of the two options in a few months, the two candidates were chosen under an elaborate process monitored by his own administration, and the man on the Liberal ticket is his friend and former Vice President - yet no reporter, certainly not Goodman, bothered to ask a single question regarding this series of events or his evidence per coup participation.

Just because Zelaya raised the minimum wage (a matter explicitly stated as problematic by Arias and others, on numerous occasions - even within the last few days) does not mean that is permanent. Also, food staple prices are controlled by the Honduran government, so there is another factor, too. What big business does in the near future is important - as every option is up for redefinition (it is amazing how many average, poor Hondurans trust Honduran big business over Zelaya, even though food prices have skyrocketed, and he substantially increased their wages). The Coup government has tried hard to make it look like a firm non-business coup, so they cannot easily go after wages or prices without losing whatever credibility they currently have. If one assumes that everything happened due to big business, then it is hard to make sense of much of what follows (either something monumental is hidden or ...?). People want to discount the Chavez factor, and do so mostly on the fact that it seems too easy (if it is CNN’s possible answer, then it can’t be right...), too superficial (it would take much more than that threat/possibility...) or, that it cannot make sense or be the cause since the anti-Zelaya Congress that kicked him out for Chavism, theselves actually voted in favor of ALBA / Petro-Caribe. No one wants to dig deeper, perhaps because the Zelaya-Micheleti pact and related bribery scandals also don’t seem to benefit a big business conspiracy, given that no big business benefit or lost from this fiasco. There is also the problem of Zelaya endorsing Michelleti’s recent run for the Presidency. Dig deeper on some fronts and matters of principle are the last thing anyone will find - and digging there undermines the competing “help-the-poor” or “anti-Chavism or death” models that have been put forward.

The reason for treating all former Zelaya offices as a crime scene is so that there is evidence should Zelaya ever be serious about a trial, and there is also non-impeachment based evidence to use to justify the coup after the fact - if need be. If viewed as a puzzle, then some pieces are missing. But, if viewed differently, that the primary cause was simultaneously introducing "illegal" referendums, joining ALBA, and bankrupting the country and possibly ending up in a situation where only one man would come to your financial rescue (Chavez), then there aren’t any big hidden facts to locate - as the coup was launched to prevent things from happening, not to conceal things that had already happened. Big business certainly did not benefit from this coup (yet). One thing they have on their side is the belief of many Hondurans who, regardless of their income, job, education, plight in life, etc., are not interested in Zelaya’s new found politics. While Zelaya has measurable support, it is still dwarfed by the support of poor Hondurans who cannot wait for Zelaya’s former Vice-President to be the next Liberal President of Honduras.

The real problem for Zelaya is that so few people believe the words that come out of his mouth, and nothing much else maters when that is the case. Zelaya would not tell you the truth of why he was removed, nor would he admit what he would do if returned to power. In fact, when Goodman asked him about U.S. Aid he didn’t even bother to answer, when actually set-up by Goodman and asked about Atala & Canahuati he was vague and all-but incoherent. The best he could do was the “the ten economic groups”, without naming the 10 nor any associated person nor any realized benefit. Zelaya has not been forthcoming about anything his entire Presidency, and that evasiveness, combined with his willingness to continually contradict himself, explains part of his and the country's problem.

Is it possible that this was actually an event driven by politics within the country, and not by foreign puppeteers?

Given that *nobody* in an official position outside Honduras is supportive of the coup/ouster, I sure don't see who would have been behind it.

I remain unconvinced that Zelaya's original offences were or were not unconstitutional. I just haven't seen enough credible evidence on either side.

It is pretty clear to me that whether the congress and court were right or wrong in blocking the referendum, his defiance of them was wrong. And whether the order to remove him from office was right or wrong, the military deporting him was wrong.

I can't see it happening, but if I were asked to find a fair solution, it would be something like:

1. The election scheduled for November would be held as soon as practical. It sounds like they are doing this.
2. Micheletti could not run for re-election. Based on statements, it sounds like he would be fine with that.
3. If Zelaya wished to return to the country, or to power, he would have to stand trial first. If he chose to do so, every effort should be made to complete the trial quickly, perhaps allowing him to serve the last few months of his term. Regardless of the outcome, he could not run for an additional term. Zelaya seems unlikely to agree to this, perhaps because he was guilty, perhaps because he could never get a fair trial, or both.

the pipe solvent you are breathing. This is F****ed up thinking even for you.ZZT