From Coup-Lite to Truth-Lite: 10 Ways the U.S. Fought Democracy in Honduras

By Andrés Thomas Conteris

In his essay “Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side the United States Government Is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras,” Mark Weisbrot correctly illustrates U.S. backing for the coup regime and the lack of U.S. support for democracy. For more than 100 days, I have been holed up with President Manuel Zelaya inside the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, covering the story for “Democracy Now!” and other independent media. In case Weisbrot’s points were not convincing, here are another 10 ways the U.S. has undermined democracy in Honduras.

10. The resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on June 30 strongly condemned the coup in Honduras. The United States, however, prevented the U.N. Security Council from taking strong measures consistent with the resolution.

9. When President Zelaya returned to Tegucigalpa and took refuge in the Brazilian Embassy on Sept. 21, Lewis Amselem, the U.S. representative at the Organization of American States (OAS), called his action “foolish” and “irresponsible.” Amselem, whose background is with the U.S. Southern Command, is known in the halls of the OAS as “the diplomator.” He led the charge for validating the Honduran elections, while many other countries opposed recognition of elections held under the coup regime.

8. The U.S. Southern Command sponsored the PANAMAX 09 joint maneuvers, conducted Sept. 11-21 off the coast of Panama with military forces from 20 countries. Even though the U.S. publicly stated that ties with the Honduran military had been severed, the invitation to Honduras to participate in these maneuvers was not rescinded. The Honduran armed forces finally said they would withdraw, but only after several Latin American countries threatened to boycott the exercises.

7. Key members of the Honduran military involved in the coup received training at the School of the Americas (which changed its name to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, WHISC), including Gens. Romeo Vasquez and Luis Javier Prince. Even after the June 28 coup, the Pentagon continued training members of the Honduran military at WHISC, in Ft. Benning, Ga.

6. The negotiating teams for both sides of the conflict reached an accord Oct. 30. Days later, when the U.S. made it clear it would honor the Nov. 29 election whether or not he was reinstated as president, Zelaya declared the accord to be a “dead letter.” The Obama administration claimed it would recognize Zelaya as the president of the country but refused to accept his withdrawal from the accord. That Washington is ignoring the Honduran president is also evidenced by the failure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama to respond to his letters.

5. U.S. officials continue to sing the praises of the accord, but they have been cherry-picking which parts of the agreement to underscore and which to ignore. The Verification Commission mandated by the accord came together only on one occasion, for a photo op. The accord stipulates international aid for the commission’s work, but the U.S. provided no economic or political support. Had the Verification Commission been activated, it would have denounced the Nov. 5 deadline passing without the formation of a government of national unity. It would have had to consider rebuking coup leader Roberto Micheletti for assuming he would preside over this new government. Given the violations by coup leaders, the commission would have had to rule whether the Nov. 29 elections should have proceeded, or been recognized.

4. The U.S. supports a comprehensive amnesty, a component intentionally left out of the accord. The coup regime filed 24 criminal charges against President Zelaya, and he says he is willing to face all of them in an impartial court of law. He has called for an independent international tribunal and rejected the option of amnesty for himself and the coup perpetrators. If amnesty is declared, impunity will be enshrined for the golpistas, as well as for the U.S. Pentagon and civilian officials complicit in the crimes of the coup.

3. The accord calls for the establishment of a truth commission during the first half of 2010. U.S. officials say they favor this; however “truth-lite” seems to be what they prefer. In recent decades, most truth commissions have limited truth-telling to circumstances within their countries’ borders. One exception occurred in Chad, where the role of foreign governments in funding and training the perpetrators of human rights crimes was investigated. If Honduras followed Chad’s example, its truth commission would examine U.S. behavior before, during and after the coup. Some possible questions: What role did those formerly employed by the U.S. government, such as John Negroponte, Otto Reich and Lanny Davis, play before and after the coup? Why did the plane carrying the kidnapped president on June 28 land just 60 miles from the capital at the airbase where the U.S. Joint Task Force Bravo is headquartered? (U.S. officials claim it was to refuel.) Why did the U.S. allow aid to continue to flow to the coup regime while not declaring that a “military coup” had taken place against the advice of the State Department’s legal experts? Top U.S. officials labeled what happened in Honduras as a coup, but given their actions, it’s more like “coup-lite.”

2. Last August, at the Summit of North American Leaders in Mexico, President Obama had harsh words for opponents of his policy, declaring: “The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we’re always intervening. … I think what that indicates is that maybe there’s some hypocrisy involved in their approach to U.S.-Latin American relations. ...”
The continuing U.S. intervention and hypocrisy in Honduras go well beyond what Mark Weisbrot and I have described. Aid continues to flow to the de facto regime, despite U.S. law that mandates cutting aid to military coups; that is intervention. Lifting the symbolic sanctions temporarily imposed on the dictatorship after the accord was signed but not implemented, that is intervention. Bestowing harsher criticism on President Zelaya and his nonviolent supporters than on the perpetrators of gross human rights crimes, that is hypocrisy.

1. Here in the Brazilian Embassy, incoming death threats are part of the psychological warfare directed against those who continue to accompany Zelaya. Elsewhere in Honduras: Resistance leader Carlos Turcios was kidnapped and beheaded Dec. 16; two members of the United Peasant Movement of Aguan were abducted by four hooded men Dec. 17; and resistance member Edwin Renán Fajardo, 22, was tortured and murdered Dec. 22. In an open letter to fellow Central American presidents Dec. 28, Zelaya cited more than 4,000 human rights violations by the coup regime, including 130 killings, more than 450 people wounded, more than 3,000 illegal detentions, and the political imprisonment of 114 people.
The silence of the U.S. government over the last six months regarding the ongoing human rights violations by the golpistas in Honduras confirms that the Obama regime has sought to support a death-squad democracy, rather than reinstating the nation’s elected leader.

That is intervention. That is hypocrisy.

Andrés Thomas Conteris is director of Program on the Americas, for Nonviolence International, and works with “ ‘Democracy Now!’ en Español.”

AP / Arnulfo Franco

Soldiers and police stand guard near the Brazilian Embassy in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa, where Honduras’ ousted President Manuel Zelaya has been sheltered since sneaking back into the country in September.

Letter from Zelaya to Obama, last night (Original in Spanish)

PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPUBLICA

Del Escritorio
del Señor Presidente

Tegucigalpa, 14 de Noviembre de 2009

S. E.
BARACK OBAMA
PRESIDENTE EEUU
Washington D.C.

Estimado Presidente Obama:

Cuando nos reunimos por primera vez el 8 de julio con la Secretaria de Estado Clinton después del Golpe de Estado se dejo claro ante mí y ante el mundo la posición de la administración Obama de condenar el Golpe de Estado, desconocer sus autoridades y exigir el retorno del estado de derecho con la restitución, al cargo de Presidente electo por el pueblo. La posición oficial de su gobierno y sus representantes que patrocinaron y firmaron las resoluciones de la ONU, OEA. En el que el tercer punto exige mi restitución inmediata y segura.

A partir del 28 de junio de 2009 mi secuestro por los militares y destierro a Costa Rica. El Congreso de la República emitió un decreto ilegal donde ordena “Separar al ciudadano José Manuel Zelaya del cargo de Presidente Constitucional de la República” sin facultades constitucionales para hacerlo, y sin el debido procesos sin ser citado a ningún juicio.

Desde la primera reunión con la secretaria Hillary Clinton me propusieron la mediación del Presidente de Costa Rica Oscar Arias a pesar de que considero que es contraproducente dialogar con personas que tienen un arma en sus manos, acepte considerando el auspicio de EE.UU y de la comunidad internacional.

En un comunicado de fecha 04 de septiembre del presente año la Secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton expresaba a lo siguiente: “La conclusión positiva del proceso iniciado por Arias sería la base adecuada para proceder con una elección legítima”

De todos es conocido que el Régimen de Facto sin la visita a Honduras del sub. Secretario de Estado para el Hemisferio Occidental, Thomas Shannon, Daniel Restrepo y Craig Kelly no hubieran firmado el Acuerdo. Todos sabemos por qué se rompió el acuerdo, Tegucigalpa – San José. El propio Presidente Oscar Arias en aras de la verdad declaro que: “Micheletti nunca tuvo voluntad de colaborar y que por el contrario se estaba burlando de la comunidad internacional y sólo buscaba dilatar el tiempo para nunca entregar el poder a quien corresponde”.

El Ex Presidente Ricardo Lagos, miembro prominente de la Comisión Internacional de Verificación en sus declaraciones confirmo esto, al manifestar: “El Señor Micheletti lo rompió”, “Micheletti hizo cosas que no debía haber hecho como decir yo formare un gobierno de unidad sin Zelaya” lo que hizo fracasar este acuerdo negociado.

El propio día en que se instalaba en Tegucigalpa la Comisión de Verificación, del
acuerdo sorprendieron las declaraciones, de funcionarios del Departamento de Estado donde modifican su posición e interpretan el acuerdo unilateralmente con las declaraciones siguientes“…las elecciones serían reconocidas por Estados Unidos con o sin restitución…”; El régimen de facto celebro este cambio y utilizaron estas declaraciones para sus objetivos, e inmediatamente terminaron por incumplir y violar el Acuerdo Por lo anteriormente expuesto nos manifestamos de la siguiente manera:

Que el Acuerdo Tegucigalpa-San José queda sin valor ni efecto por incumplimiento unilateral del gobierno de facto. Este fue concebido para implementarse en forma integral y simultánea; pues no se contemplaron como doce acuerdos separados, fue un solo acuerdo con doce puntos el cual tenía un solo propósito, restaurar el orden democrático y la paz social, y con esto se revirtiera el golpe de estado, lo que implica el seguro retorno del Presidente de República elegido legítimamente por voto popular. Y con esto, propiciar un clima de reconciliación nacional y un siguiente proceso electoral
constitucional, limpio, con garantías de participación igualitaria y libre para todos los ciudadanos de Honduras Que las próximas elecciones se debían desarrollar en un marco de legalidad y respaldo internacional especialmente de la OEA y ONU y que fuera de esas condiciones políticas y de derechos ciudadanos mínimos para garantizar un resultado apegado a la libertad y a la transparencia.

En esto, quiero anotar que la nueva posición de los funcionarios del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos esquiva el objetivo inicial del diálogo de San José, relegando un acuerdo con el Gobierno legítimamente reconocido hacia un segundo plano, y tratando de trasladar este acuerdo hacia un nuevo proceso electoral sin importar las condiciones en que se desarrolle. Entre otras, con recursos públicos están siendo autorizados por funcionarios públicos no reconocidos legalmente e imputados a un documento de Presupuesto que no ha sido autorizado por Presidente legítimamente reconocido.

En estas condiciones, este proceso, y por lo tanto sus resultados serán sujetos de impugnación y no reconocimiento; lo cual pone en grave riesgo la estabilidad futura de las relaciones entre Honduras y el resto de naciones que reconozcan sus resultados.

Como lo ha señalado el Secretario General de la OEA José Miguel Insulza, no existe un ambiente político, para elecciones, como lo ha observado y apuntado la Congresista Norteamericana Jane Sharkorky en su visita a Honduras, se observa un ambiente comprobado de violación a los derechos humanos en Honduras.

El 6 de noviembre pasado, hemos comunicado nuestra negativa a continuar con el dialogo falso, y por lo tanto al expirarse el plazo el texto constituye letra muerta que pierde vigencia, porque un acuerdo se cumple en tiempo y forma, la violación de este por el régimen de facto es para nosotros la condición que determina que el acuerdo dejo de existir. Indudablemente se perdió tiempo precioso en este intento fallido.

La elección presidencial está actualmente prevista para la última semana de noviembre. En este caso, como Presidente Constitucional de Honduras, y como ciudadano que representa y fue elegido por voto democrático del pueblo de Honduras, me veo en la obligación de informar que bajo estas condiciones no podemos respaldarla y procederemos a impugnarlo legalmente en nombre de millares de hondureños y de cientos de candidatos que sienten que esta competencia es desigual y no se presentan las condiciones de participación en libertad.

En Honduras por la represión a que hoy está sometido el pueblo Hondureño, donde no se respeta ni la más alta autoridad el Presidente de la Republica, donde no se ha considerado que en tres años logré los mejores indicadores económicos y la más grande reducción de la pobreza de los 28 años de vida democrática, donde fui derrocado por la fuerza de las armas, nunca fui sometido a un juicio ni al proceso debido y tengo hoy 24 acusaciones y ordenes de captura por narcotráfico corrupción y terrorismo entre otros, y donde la mayor parte de los Ministros de mi gabinete son objeto de persecución política y se encuentran huyendo del régimen en diferentes partes de América.

3500 personas detenidas en cien días, mas de 600 personas heridas y golpeadas en los hospitales, más de un centenar de asesinatos y una incontable cantidad de personas sometidas a torturas cometidas contra ciudadanos que se atreven a oponerse y manifestar sus ideas, de libertad y justicia, en manifestaciones pacificas, todo esto convierten las elecciones de noviembre en un ejercicio anti-democrático por estado de ilegitimidad, por la incertidumbre y la intimidación militar, para grandes sectores de nuestro pueblo.

Realizar elecciones, en las que el Presidente electo por el pueblo de Honduras, a quien reconoce su Gobierno y la Comunidad Internacional, está prisionero, rodeado por militares en la sede diplomática de Brasil, y un Presidente de Facto, que impusieron los militares, rodeado por los poderosos en el palacio de gobierno, será una vergüenza histórica para Honduras y una infamia para los pueblos Democráticos de América.

Este proceso electoral es ilegal porque oculta el golpe de estado militar, y el estado de facto en que vive Honduras no brinda garantías de igualdad y libertad en la participación ciudadana, a todos los Hondureños, es una maniobra electoral antidemocrática repudiada por grandes sectores del pueblo para encubrir los autores materiales e intelectuales del Golpe de Estado.

Las Elecciones son un proceso no son solo un día donde se va elegir, es un debate, es exposición de ideas es igualdad de oportunidades.

En mi condición de Presidente electo por el pueblo Hondureño, reafirmo mi decisión que a partir de esta fecha cualquiera que fuera el caso, YO NO ACEPTO, ningún acuerdo de retorno a la presidencia, para encubrir el golpe de estado, que sabemos que tiene un impacto directo por la represión militar sobre los derechos humanos de las habitantes de nuestro país.

Sr. Presidente en la Cumbre de Países del Continente Americano celebrada en Trinidad y Tobago a principios de este año, donde estuve presente Usted manifestó

“Que dejáramos de acusar a Estados Unidos por lo que hizo en el pasado en el continente y que viéramos hacia el futuro”. El futuro que hoy nos muestran al alterar su posición en el caso de Honduras y favorecer así la intervención abusiva de las castas militares en la vida cívica de nuestro Estado, (causa histórica del atraso y estancamiento de nuestros países en el siglo XX) No es mas que el ocaso de la libertad y un desprecio a la dignidad humana, es una nueva guerra contra los procesos de reformas sociales y democráticas tan necesarios en Honduras.

Presidente Obama, cada vez que se derroca un Gobierno legítimamente electo en América la violencia y el terrorismo nos gana una batalla y la Democracia sufre
una derrota.

Todavía Nos resistimos a creer que este golpe de estado militar en ejecución en Honduras, es ya el nuevo, terrorismo de estado del siglo XXI. Y será el futuro para América latina que nos hablo en Trinidad y Tobago.

Estamos firmes decididos a luchar por nuestra democracia sin ocultar la verdad y cuando un pueblo se decide a luchar pacíficamente por sus ideas, no hay arma, no hay ejército ni maniobra capaz de detenerlo.

En espera de su pronta respuesta, le reitero mi más alta consideración.

JOSE MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES
Presidente de Honduras

Obama administration playing footsie with Honduran junta

RT: Obama administration playing footsie with Honduran junta

Honduras: VICTORY FOR "SMART POWER" by Eva Golinger

HONDURAS: A VICTORY FOR "SMART POWER"

Henry Kissinger said that diplomacy is the “art of restraining power”. Obviously, the most influential ideologue on US foreign policy of the twenty first century was refering to the necessity to “restrain the power” of other countries and goverments in order to maintain the dominant world power of the United States. Presidents in the style of George W. Bush employed “Hard Power” to achieve this goal: weapons, bombs, threats and military invasions. Others, like Bill Clinton, used “Soft Power”: cultural warfare, Hollywood, ideals, diplomacy, moral authority and campaigns to “win the hearts and minds” of those in enemy nations. The Obama administration has opted for a mutation of these two concepts, fusioning military power with diplomacy, political and economic influence with cultural penetration and legal manuvering. They call this “Smart Power”. Its first application is the coup d’etat in Honduras, and as of today, it’s worked to perfection.

During her confirmation hearing before the Senate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that “we should use what has been called “smart power”, the complete range of tools that are at our disposal – diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural – choosing the correct tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With “smart power”, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy.” Clinton later reinforced this concept affirming that the “wisest path will be to first use persuasion.”

So, what is intelligent about this concept? It’s a form of politics that is difficult to classify, difficult to detect and difficult to deconstruct. Honduras is a clear example. On one hand, President Obama condemned the coup against President Zelaya while his ambassador in Tegucigalpa held regular meetings with the coup leaders. Secretary of State Clinton repeated over and over again during the past four months that Washington didn’t want to “influence” the situation in Honduras – that Hondurans needed to resolve their crisis, without outside interference. But it was Washington that imposed the mediation process “led” by President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, and Washington that kept funding the coup regime and its supporters via USAID, and Washington that controlled and commanded the Honduran armed forces, involved in repressing the people and imposing a brutal regime, through its massive military presence in the Soto Cano military base.

Washington lobbyists also wrote the San José “agreement”, and in the end, it was the high level State Department and White House delegation that “persuaded” the Hondurans to accept the agreement. Despite the constant US interference in the coup d’etat in Honduras – funding, design, and political and military support – Washington’s “smart power” approach was able to distort public opinion and make the Obama administration come out as the grand victor of “multilateralism”.

What “smart power” achieved was a way to disguise Washington’s unilateralism as multilateralism. From day one, Washington imposed its agenda. On July 1st, spokespeople for the Department of State admitted in a press briefing that they had prior knowledge of the coup in Honduras. They also admitted that two high level State Department officials, Thomas Shannon and James Steinberg, were in Honduras the week before the coup meeting with the civil and military groups involved. They said their purpose was to “impede the coup”, but how, therefore, can they explain that the airplane that forcefully exiled President Zelaya left from the Soto Cano military base in the presence of US military officers?

The facts demonstrate the truth about Washington and the coup in Honduras, and the subsequent successful experiment with “smart power”. Washington knew about the coup before it happened, yet continued to fund those involved via USAID and NED. The Pentagon aided in the illegal forced exile of President Zelaya, and later, the Obama administration used the Organization of American States (OAS) – during a moment at which it was on the border of extinction – as a façade to impose its agenda. The discourse of the Department of State always legitimated the coup leaders, calling on “both parts…to resolve the political dispute in a peaceful way through dialogue.” Since when is an illegal usurper of power considered a “legitimate part” capable of dialogue? Obviously, a criminal actor who takes power by force is not interested in dialoguing. Based on this Washington logic, the world should call on the Obama administration to “resolve its political dispute with Al Qaeda in a peaceful way through dialogue, and not war”.

The Obama/Clinton “smart power” achieved its first victory during the initial days of the coup, persuading the member states of the OAS to accept a 72-hour wait period to allow the coup regime in Honduras to “think through its actions”. Soon after, Secretary of State Clinton imposed the mediation efforts, led by Arias, and by then, so much space had been ceded to Washington, that the US just stepped in and took the reigns. When President Zelaya went to Washington and met with Clinton, it was obvious who was in control. And that’s how they played it out, buying more and more time up until the last minute, so that even if Zelaya returns to power now he will have no space or time to govern.

The people were left out, excluded. Months of repression, violence, persecution, human rights violations, curfews, media closures, tortures and political assasinations have been forgotten. What a relief, as Subsecretary of State Thomas Shannon remarked upon achieving the signature of Micheletti and Zelaya on the final “agreement”, that the situation in Honduras was resolved “without violence”.

Upon signature of the “agreement” this past October 30th, Washington immediately lifted the few restrictions it had imposed on the coup regime as a pressure tactic. Now they can get visas again and travel north, they don’t have to worry about the millions of dollars from USAID, which hadn’t even been suspended in the first place. The US military in presence in Soto Cano can reinitiate all their activities – oh wait, they never stopped in the first place. The Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) of the Pentagon affirmed just days after the coup that “everything is normal with our armed forces in Honduras, they are engaging in their usual activities with their Honduran counterparts.” And Washington is already preparing its delegation of elections observors for the November 29th presidential elections – they are already on their way.

Forget about Cold War torturer Billy Joya who was scheming with the coup regime against the resistance; or the Colombian paramilitary forces sent in to help the coup regime “control” the population. Don’t worry anymore about the sonic warfare LRAD weapon used to torture those inside the Brazilian embassy in an attempt to oust Zelaya from the building. Nothing happened. As Thomas Shannon said, “we congratulate two great men for reaching this historic agreement”. And Secretary of State Clinton commented that “this agreement is a tremendous achievement for the Hondurans.” Wait, for who?

In the end, the celebrated “agreement” imposed by Washington only calls upon the Honduran Congress – the same Congress that falsified Zelaya’s resignation letter in order to justify the coup, and the same Congress that supported the illegal installation of Micheletti in the presidency – to determine whether or not it wants to reinstate Zelaya as president. And only after receiving a legal opinion from the Honduran Supreme Court – the same one that said Zelaya was a traitor for calling for a non-binding poll vote on potential future constitutional reform, and the same one that ordered his violent capture. Even if the Congress’ answer is positive, Zelaya would not have any power. The “agreement” stipulates that the members of his cabinet will be imposed by those political parties involved in the coup, the armed forces will be under the control of the Supreme Court that supported the coup, and Zelaya could be tried for his alleged “crime” of “treason” because he wanted to have a non-binding poll on constitutional reform.

Per the “agreement” a truth commission would supervise its implementation. Today, Ricardo Lagos, ex president of Chile and staunch Washington ally, was announced as the leader of the Honduran Truth Commission. Lagos is co-director of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Dialogue, a right wing think tank that influences Washington’s policies on Latin America. Lagos also was charged with creating a Chilean version of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), la Fundación Democracia y Desarrollo, to “promote democracy” in Latin America, US-style. Upon leaving the presidency in 2006, Lagos was named President of the Club of Madrid – an exclusive club of ex presidents dedicated to “promoting democracy” around the world. Several key figures involved in currently destabilizing left-leaning Latin American governments are members of this “club”, including Jorge Quiroga and Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (ex presidents of Bolivia), Felipe González (ex prime minister of Spain), Václav Havel (ex president of the Chech Republic) and José María Aznar (ex prime minister of Spain), amongst many others.

In the end, “smart power” was sufficiently intelligent to deceive those who today celebrate an “end to the crisis” in Honduras. But for a majority of people in Latin America, the victory of Obama’s “smart power” in Honduras is a dark and dangerous shadow closing in on us. Initiatives such as ALBA have just begun to achieve a level of Latin American independence from the dominant northern power. For the first time in history, the nations and peoples of Latin America have been collectively standing strong with dignity and sovereignty, building their futures. And then along came Obama with his “smart power”, and ALBA was hit by the coup in Honduras, Latin American integration has been weakened by the US military expansion in Colombia, and the struggle for independence and sovereignty in Washington’s backyard is being squashed by a sinister smile and insincere handshake.

Bowing before Washington, the crisis in Honduras “was resolved”. Ironically, the same crisis was fomented by the US in the first place. There is talk of similar coups in Paraguay, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Venezuela, where subversion, counterinsurgency and destabilization increase daily. The people of Honduras remain in resistance, despite the “agreement” reached by those in power. Their determined insurrection and commitment to justice is a symbol of dignity. The only way to defeat imperialist agression – soft, hard or smart - is through the union and integration of the people.

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes longer.” – Henry Kissinger

Newsbytes and comments

1. Besieged Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, who is holed up in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, has been the subject of a smear campaign launched by the Miami Herald, Washington Post, and New York Times, all supporters of right-wing juntas like the one that is now stomping its fascist jack boot on the people of Honduras. Zelaya has been ridiculed for claiming that Israeli security advisers in Honduras were responsible for the use of cell phone jamming devices and toxic gas on the Brazilian embassy.

Zelaya is correct on both charges, contrary to the fantasies of the Miami, New York, and Washington oligarch newspaper. Weapons and CS gas used by the Hondurans against the Brazilian embassy is reportedly being supplied by a longtime Israeli businessman in Honduras, Yehuda Leitner, the owner of the firms Alfacom and Intrecom. In the 1980, Leitner, operating under the Mossad cover of manager of an agricultural firm in Honduras, Acensa & Shemesh Agrotech, was funneling weapons to the Nicaraguan contras and Honduran death squad Battalion 3-16, set up under the aegis of the CIA and U.S. ambassador to Honduras John Negroponte. Leitner denied at the time that he was an arms trafficker, insisting he was merely a "melon trafficker."

The Israeli weapons firm that funneled the weapons for Leitner was International Security and Defence Systems (ISDS), started in 1982 by Leo Gleser, an Israel Defense Force and Mossad veteran. ISDS specialized in interrogations and supervision of prisoners in Latin America, that is torture and illegal detention. ISDS also, curiously, provided security services to Venezuelan oil companies shortly before the 2002 abortive coup against President Hugo Chavez. The CIA and U.S. Special Operations Forces fomented anti-Chavez labor strikes and protests among the oil workers' unions prior to the coup. ISDS benefited greatly from security contracts with U.S. firms in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Leitner has also been associated with another Mossad front company in Tegucigalpa, Interseg, with its address at Col. El Prado, Edif. SYRE, 2nd. piso P.O.Box: 30122 Tegucigalpa M.D.C. The firm was actually recommended as a supplier of security equipment by the U.S. State Department's U.S. Foreign and Commercial Service in 1998.

The cell phone jammers used by the Honduran military on the Brazilian embassy are C-Guard units made by NetLine Communications Inc. of Tel Aviv. One was found on the roof of a home next to the Brazilian embassy and confiscated by Zelaya supporters and taken into the Brazilian embassy as proof of Israeli involvement with the Honduran junta. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) bans the use of such devices in the United States.

2. At a press conference at the UN last week, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was asked why he is shutting down television stations in his country if he says he believes in democracy. Chavez asked the questioner what TV station he shut down. The answer was "RTV." Chavez corrected the reporter and said it was RCTV to which she was referring and he said he did not shut down the strongly anti-Chavez station but transferred its broadcasting licenses to 34 community-based TV stations that broadcast content heavy on public interest matters. The main staple of RCTV, which continues to broadcast unfettered on cable, is soap operas. RCTV backed the April 2002 abortive U.S.-supported coup against Chavez.

The Declaration of Cumaná

The Declaration of Cumaná

Apr 21 2009

ALBA

Cumaná, Venezuela

We, the Heads of State and Government of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela, member countries of ALBA, consider that the Draft Declaration of the 5th Summit of the Americas is insufficient and unacceptable for the following reasons:

- The Declaration does not provide answers to the Global Economic Crisis, even though this crisis constitutes the greatest challenge faced by humanity in the last decades and is the most serious threat of the current times to the welfare of our peoples.

- The Declaration unfairly excludes Cuba, without mentioning the consensus in the region condemning the blockade and isolation to which the people and the government of Cuba have incessantly been exposed in a criminal manner.

For this reason, we, the member countries of ALBA believe that there is no consensus for the adoption of this draft declaration because of the reasons above stated, and accordingly, we propose to hold a thorough debate on the following topics:

1. Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction. What we are experiencing is a global economic crisis of a systemic and structural nature, not another cyclic crisis. Those who think that with a taxpayer money injection and some regulatory measures this crisis will end are wrong. The financial system is in crisis because it trades bonds with six times the real value of the assets and services produced and rendered in the world, this is not a “system regulation failure”, but a integrating part of the capitalist system that speculates with all assets and values with a view to obtain the maximum profit possible. Until now, the economic crisis has generated over 100 million additional hungry persons and has slashed over 50 million jobs, and these figures show an upward trend.

2. Capitalism has caused the environmental crisis, by submitting the necessary conditions for life in the planet, to the predominance of market and profit. Each year we consume one third more of what the planet is able to regenerate. With this squandering binge of the capitalist system, we are going to need two planets Earth by the year 2030.

3. The global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis are the result of the decay of capitalism, which threatens to end life and the planet. To avert this outcome, it is necessary to develop and model an alternative to the capitalist system. A system based on:

- solidarity and complementarity, not competition;
- a system in harmony with our mother earth and not plundering of human resources;
- a system of cultural diversity and not cultural destruction and imposition of cultural values and lifestyles alien to the realities of our countries;
- a system of peace based on social justice and not on imperialist policies and wars;
- in summary, a system that recovers the human condition of our societies and peoples and does not reduce them to mere consumers or merchandise.

4. As a concrete expression of the new reality of the continent, we, Caribbean and Latin American countries, have commenced to build our own institutionalization, an institutionalization that is based on a common history dating back to our independence revolution and constitutes a concrete tool for deepening the social, economic and cultural transformation processes that will consolidate our full sovereignty. ALBA-TCP, Petrocaribe or UNASUR, mentioning merely the most recently created, are solidarity-based mechanisms of unity created in the midst of such transformations with the obvious intention of boosting the efforts of our peoples to attain their own freedom. To face the serious effects of the global economic crisis, we, the ALBA-TCP countries, have adopted innovative and transforming measures that seek real alternatives to the inadequate international economic order, not to boost their failed institutions. Thus, we have implemented a Regional Clearance Unitary System, the SUCRE, which includes a Common Unit of Account, a Clearance Chamber and a Single Reserve System. Similarly, we have encouraged the constitution of grand-national companies to satisfy the essential needs of our peoples and establish fair and complementary trade mechanisms that leave behind the absurd logic of unbridled competition.

5. We question the G20 for having tripled the resources of the International Monetary Fund when the real need is to establish a new world economic order that includes the full transformation of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, entities that have contributed to this global economic crisis with their neoliberal policies.

6. The solutions to the global economic crisis and the definition of a new international financial scheme should be adopted with the participation of the 192 countries that will meet in the United Nations Conference on the International Financial Crisis to be held on June 1-3 to propose the creation of a new international economic order.

7. As for climate change, developed countries are in an environmental debt to the world because they are responsible for 70% of historical carbon emissions into the atmosphere since 1750. Developed countries should pay off their debt to humankind and the planet; they should provide significant resources to a fund so that developing countries can embark upon a growth model which does not repeat the serious impacts of the capitalist industrialization.

8. Solutions to the energy, food and climate change crises should be comprehensive and interdependent. We cannot solve a problem by creating new ones in fundamental areas for life. For instance, the widespread use of agricultural fuels has an adverse effect on food prices and the use of essential resources, such as water, land and forests.

9. We condemn the discrimination against migrants in any of its forms. Migration is a human right, not a crime. Therefore, we request the United States government an urgent reform of its migration policies in order to stop deportations and massive raids and allow for reunion of families. We further demand the removal of the wall that separates and divides us, instead of uniting us. In this regard, we petition for the abrogation of the Law of Cuban Adjustment and removal of the discriminatory, selective Dry Feet, Wet Feet policy that has claimed human losses. Bankers who stole the money and resources from our countries are the true responsible, not migrant workers. Human rights should come first, particularly human rights of the underprivileged, downtrodden sectors in our society, that is, migrants without identity papers. Free movement of people and human rights for everybody, regardless of their migration status, are a must for integration. Brain drain is a way of plundering skilled human resources exercised by rich countries.

10. Basic education, health, water, energy and telecommunications services should be declared human rights and cannot be subject to private deal or marketed by the World Trade Organization. These services are and should be essentially public utilities of universal access.

11. We wish a world where all, big and small, countries have the same rights and where there is no empire. We advocate non-intervention. There is the need to strengthen, as the only legitimate means for discussion and assessment of bilateral and multilateral agendas in the hemisphere, the foundations for mutual respect between states and governments, based on the principle of non-interference of a state in the internal affairs of another state, and inviolability of sovereignty and self-determination of the peoples. We request the new Government of the United States, the arrival of which has given rise to some expectations in the hemisphere and the world, to finish the longstanding and dire tradition of interventionism and aggression that has characterized the actions of the US governments throughout history, and particularly intensified during the Administration of President George W. Bush. By the same token, we request the new Government of the United States to abandon interventionist practices, such as cover-up operations, parallel diplomacy, media wars aimed at disturbing states and governments, and funding of destabilizing groups. Building on a world where varied economic, political, social and cultural approaches are acknowledged and respected is of the essence.

12. With regard to the US blockade against Cuba and the exclusion of the latter from the Summit of the Americas, we, the member states of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America, reassert the Declaration adopted by all Latin American and Caribbean countries last December 16, 2008, on the need to end the economic, trade and financial blockade imposed by the Government of the United States of America on Cuba, including the implementation of the so-called Helms-Burton Act. The declaration sets forth in its fundamental paragraphs the following:

“CONSIDERING the resolutions approved by the United Nations General Assembly on the need to finish the economic, trade and financial blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba, and the statements on such blockade, which have been approved in numerous international meetings.

“WE AFFIRM that the application of unilateral, coercive measures affecting the wellbeing of peoples and hindering integration processes is unacceptable when defending free exchange and the transparent practice of international trade.

“WE STRONGLY REPEL the enforcement of laws and measures contrary to International Law, such as the Helms-Burton Act, and we urge the Government of the United States of America to finish such enforcement.

“WE REQUEST the Government of the United States of America to comply with the provisions set forth in 17 successive resolutions approved by the United Nations General Assembly and put an end to the economic, trade and financial blockade on Cuba.”

Additionally, we consider that the attempts at imposing the isolation of Cuba have failed, as nowadays Cuba forms an integral part of the Latin American and Caribbean region; it is a member of the Rio Group and other hemispheric organizations and mechanisms, which develops a policy of cooperation, in solidarity with the countries in the hemisphere; which promotes full integration of Latin American and Caribbean peoples. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to justify its exclusion from the mechanism of the Summit of the Americas.

13. Developed countries have spent at least USD 8 billion to rescue a collapsing financial structure. They are the same that fail to allocate the small sums of money to attain the Millennium Goals or 0.7% of the GDP for the Official Development Assistance. Never before the hypocrisy of the wording of rich countries had been so apparent. Cooperation should be established without conditions and fit in the agendas of recipient countries by making arrangements easier; providing access to the resources, and prioritizing social inclusion issues.

14. The legitimate struggle against drug trafficking and organized crime, and any other form of the so-called “new threats” must not be used as an excuse to undertake actions of interference and intervention against our countries.

15. We are firmly convinced that the change, where everybody repose hope, can come only from organization, mobilization and unity of our peoples.

As the Liberator wisely said:

Unity of our peoples is not a mere illusion of men, but an inexorable decree of destiny. — Simón Bolívar