Johann Hari: The other 9/11 returns to haunt Latin America
It was inevitable that the people at the top would fight to preserve their privileges
The ghost of the other, deadlier 9/11 has returned to stalk Latin America. On Sunday morning, a battalion of soldiers rammed their way into the Presidential Palace in Honduras. They surrounded the bed where the democratically elected President, Manuel Zelaya, was sleeping, and jabbed their machine guns to his chest. They ordered him to get up and marched him on to a military plane. They dumped him in his pyjamas on a landing strip in Costa Rica and told him never to return to the country that freely chose him as their head of state.
Back home, the generals locked down the phone networks, the internet and international TV channels, and announced their people were in charge now. Only sweet, empty music plays on the radio. Government ministers have been arrested and beaten. If you leave your home after 9pm, the population have been told, you risk being shot. Tanks and tear gas are ranged against the protesters who have thronged on to the streets.
For the people of Latin America, this is a replay of their September 11. On that day in Chile in 1973, Salvador Allende – a peaceful democratic socialist who was steadily redistributing wealth to the poor majority – was bombed from office and forced to commit suicide. He was replaced by a self-described "fascist", General Augusto Pinochet, who went on to "disappear" tens of thousands of innocent people. The coup was plotted in Washington DC, by Henry Kissinger.
The official excuse for killing Chilean democracy was that Allende was a "communist". He was not. In fact, he was killed because he was threatening the interests of US and Chilean mega-corporations by shifting the country's wealth and land from them to its own people. When Salvador Allende's widow died last week, she seemed like a symbol from another age – and then, a few days later, the coup came back.
Honduras is a small country in Central America with only seven million inhabitants, but it has embarked on a programme of growing democracy of its own. In 2005, Zelaya ran promising to help the country's poor majority – and he kept his word. He increased the minimum wage by 60 per cent, saying sweatshops were no longer acceptable and "the rich must pay their share".
The tiny elite at the top – who own 45 per cent of the country's wealth – are horrified. They are used to having Honduras run by them, for them.
But this wave of redistributing wealth to the population is washing over Latin America. In the barrios and favelas, I have seen how shanty towns made out of mud and rusted tin now have doctors and teachers and subsidised supermarkets for the first time, because they elected leaders who have turned the spigot of oil money in their direction. In Venezuela, for example, the poorest half of the country has seen its incomes soar by 130 per cent after inflation since they chose Hugo Chavez as their President, according to studies cited by the Nobel Prize-winning US economist Joseph Stiglitz. Infant mortality has plummeted.
No wonder so many Latin American countries are inspired by this example: the notion that Chavez has to "bribe" or "brainwash" people like Zelaya is bizarre.
It was always inevitable that the people at the top would fight back to preserve their unearned privilege. In 2002, the Venezuelan oligarchy conspired with the Bush administration in the kidnapping of Hugo Chavez. It was only a massive democratic uprising of the people that forced his return. Now they have tried the same in Honduras.
Yet the military-business nexus have invented a propaganda-excuse that is being eagerly repeated by dupes across the Western world. The generals claim they have toppled the democratically elected leader and arrested his ministers to save democracy.
Here's how it happened. Honduras has a constitution that was drawn up in 1982, by the oligarchy, under supervision from the outgoing military dictatorship. It states that the President can only serve only one term, while the military remains permanent and "independent" – in order to ensure they remain the real power in the land.
Zelaya believed this was a block on democracy, and proposed a referendum to see if the people wanted to elect a constituent assembly to draw up a new constitution. It could curtail the power of the military, and perhaps allow the President to run for re-election. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that it is unconstitutional to hold a binding referendum within a year of a presidential election. So Zelaya proposed holding a non-binding referendum instead, just to gauge public opinion. This was perfectly legal. The military – terrified of the verdict of the people – then marched in with their guns.
But there has been progress since the days of 1973, or even 2002. The coups against Allende and Chavez were eagerly backed by the CIA and White House. But this time, Barack Obama has said: "We believe the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the President of Honduras." He called the coup "a terrible precedent".
His reaction hasn't been perfect: unlike France and Spain, he hasn't withdrawn the US Ambassador yet. He supports the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which are vast brakes on Latin American democracy, and he bad-mouths Chavez while arming the genuinely abusive Colombian government. But it is a vast improvement on Bush and McCain, who would have been mistily chorusing "We are all Honduran Generals now".
The ugliest face of the Latin American oligarchy is now standing alone against the world, showing its contempt for democracy and for its own people. They are fighting to preserve the old continent where all the wealth goes to them at the end of a machine gun. I have seen the price for this: I have lived in the rubbish dumps of the continent, filled with dark-skinned scavenging children, while a few miles away there are suburbs that look like Beverly Hills.
This weekend, Zelaya will return to the country that elected him, flanked by the presidents of Argentina and the Organisation of American States, to take his rightful place. Whether he succeeds or fails will tell us if the children of the rubbish dumps have reason to hope – and whether the smoke from the deadliest 9/11 has finally cleared.
To read Johann Hari's latest article for Slate magazine - about the life and death of the Asian babe - click here.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
In Honduras, voters elect a party not an individual. Manuel Zelaya was the presidential candidate for the party that was elected three and a half years ago. Roberto Micheleti is also a member of the Honduran Liberal party which remains in power after the removal of Zelaya. The same party that the people elected during the last Honduran election is still in power now.
Zelaya acted against a Honduran Supreme court ruling that stated the poll that Zelaya was pushing for was illegal and unconstitutional. If he had stopped there, none of this need ever have happened. Instead, he pushed forward in defiance of the Supreme Court and he was encouraged to break the rule of law by Chavez. The ballots themselves, to be used in the poll, were flown in from Venezuela. Unlike what was reported here, it was a non-binding poll, not a referendum, the results of which could have seen him able to remain in power indefinitely. That would have been a suspension of democracy.
In fact, in these extra-ordinary circumstances, we see unfolding today in Honduras, the various facets of government acted in defense of democracy. This is exactly why the judiciary is separate from the presidency. So the president too has to abide by the laws of the land.
Zelaya only raised the minimum wage during the final year of his four year term in a attempt to gain further popularity with the poor. He has been reported to support organized crime and for aiding in the transport of drugs from Venezuela to the US. Is this the type of man you and the US government wants to be seen supporting?
Besides, a country's constitution is not simply a piece of paper that should be tinkered with by one person when ever it suits their own interests. It is a guiding set of principals and the four year term limit for presidents in the Honduran constitution was instituted as a check on non-democratic abuses of power in the region.
By the way, in which country is Beverly Hills located? I'm sure there are a lot of people in Flint, Michigan right now that wouldn't mind trading places with some of the friendly supporters of democracy that live in Beverly Hills.
It doesn't make sense to me. If it isn't binding how can it suspend democracy?
Its just collecting information about what the people want which I would consider an aid to democracy.
Most countries allow their leaders to run for reelection.
It doesn't seem reasonable to allow only one term, given that running a country is a long term prospect so the constitution probably does need changing to allow meaningful changes to be followed through. A non-binding poll would be reasonable way to begin to address this:i.e. it has no legal standing but it begins to make a case.
Again most countries allow this, for example the USA allows reelections and has amendments to its constution.
Probably in some beautiful hotel lounge in the caribean Chavez and company convinced Zelaya, that he was also The-One. But the guy is inept and stupid, as well as the thugs in Honduras. They did it wrong and got everyone in a mess. Other government'cannot' accept it, because it could happend to them. The thugs in Honduras cannot turn back, because nobody in Honduras will any kind of respect for them.
At the end it will be like always. The poor people will suffer and become poorer. The rich will rewrite the laws and become richer (for politicians and military in Honduras the constitution is just a piece of worthless paper, or tell me why there were every year new military juntas until the '80s in Honduras).
I am an Honduran, but I cannot say that I am proud of my country. Honduras is a joke, but not its people. And it is about them now.
What is more to the point is the comment...... " He has been reported to support organized crime and for aiding in the transport of drugs from Venezuela to the US. Is this the type of man you and the US government wants to be seen supporting?"............
This is a rumour, and invented by spin. I lived for 10 years in Colombia (and others) so the drugs that come through Venezuela to the US are by the paras (Uribes terrorists with an amnesty from Bush) from Colombia, using the perforated border and unmonitored Venezuelan airspace/shipping, and (officially recognised) taught to launder money by the DEA.
This is a last-chance shot by the Republican mafia to control their assets. They lost in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and others, and they will lose Honduras and Peru also. One day someone will calculate the deaths and misery caused by the republicans (and their commercial partners) in Latin America, and it will be added to their world total showing it to be far bigger than Hitlers worldwide misdemeanour.
This is yet another shocking example of the manipulation and corruption of US foreign policy regarding republican interests. The world is becoming more intelligent, even in Latin America.
Both I and the UK public will be heartened knowing that the republican mafia is losing its' hold and support in Latin America. There is a long way to go, as always in the fight against immoral and evil mafia.
You may be there but you understand squat. And its not surprising if you get your news from US media. "Unlike what was reported here, it was a non-binding poll, not a referendum, the results of which could have seen him able to remain in power indefinitely. That would have been a suspension of democracy." This is complete crap.
President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran ?Civil Participation Act? of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.
Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article 373 of the current constitution, in which the National Congress has to approve with 2/3 of the votes, any reform to the 1982 Constitution, excluding reforms to articles 239 and 374. This means that a perfectly legal National Constituent Assembly would have a greater mandate and fewer limitations than the National Congress, because such a National Constituent Assembly would not be reforming the Constitution, but re-writing it. The National Constituent Assembly?s mandate would come directly from the Honduran people, who would have to approve the new draft for a constitution, unlike constitutional amendments that only need 2/3 of the votes in Congress.
The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya?s term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya?s term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected. Moreover, it is completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term.
Likewise, even if the Honduran public had decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new constitution. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the 1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239 and 374. The National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate from the people, would derogate the previous constitution before approving the new one. The people, not president Zelaya, who by that time would be ex-president Zelaya, would decide.
It is evident that the opposition had no legal case against President Zelaya. All they had was speculation about perfectly legal scenarios which they strongly disliked. Otherwise, they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected of violating the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress. This explains why it wasn't the police that were sent to get him but masked soldiers, and why he was bundled out of the country and not into a police cell.
The rest is just crude propaganda.
Art 3 of the current Honduran constitution states very clearly: "Nadie debe obediencia a un gobierno usurpador ni a quienes asuman funciones o empleos públicos por la fuerza de las armas o usando medios o procedimientos que quebranten o desconozcan lo que esta Constitución y las leyes establecen. Los actos verificados por tales autoridades son nulos. el pueblo tiene derecho a recurrir a la insurrección en defensa del orden constitucional. "
No one owes any obedience to a usurper govt or those who assume the functions or public employment by force of arms or using means or procedures that break the constitution. Any acts established by such authorities are null and void. The people have the right to resort to insurrection in defense of the constitutional order.
Perhaps you would care to explain why the democratically elected mayor of San Pedro Sula, Rodolfo Padilla Sunseri, was removed by Micheletti's junta and is currently disappeared, while Micheletti has placed his own nephew Williams Franklin Micheletti as new mayor - with no vote. This is protecting democracy?
Ha! My question exactly.
It IS interesting when rebuttals like expatinhonduras' show up first in line after such a provocative, fine and right article like this one. Shows how right the article is, in my mind.
There should be a call for new electons as soon as possible. There are good precedents for this;Argentina and Ecuador have ousted their presidents and elected another in their place.I don't see why Honduras cannot do the same thing.
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmun
When a coup is brought about by the military--reaching for the guns--any argument is lost.
There is no doubt that, elitists, who have held sway in the past, are behind this illegal overthrow, believing that they will find support in other developing states in central and south America. To his apparent credit Pres. Obama has condemned this obviously crude ploy and it is my hope that, Zelaya returns unharmed to undertake investigations into the perpetrators of this primitive plot.
Hugo Chavez of Venezuela opposing the US 'free trade' model. He started using Chavezian rhetoric, declaring his to be "a government of great social transformations, committed to the poor". He welcomed Cuban doctors and harshly denounced US meddling in the region. In 1996 the Pentagon was forced to release training manuals used at the school providing expertise in torture, extortion and execution.
Any more on OBAMA REFER TO Russia today..Said Obama: "I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev that Putin understand that the old Cold War approaches to U.S.-Russian relations is outdated. ... Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new."
TWO FEET THREE TASKS ?????
And of course
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
QUOTATION OF THE DAY -
"The numbers are indicative of a continued, very severe recession. There's nothing in here to show that the economy and the market are pulling out of the grip of recession."
- STUART G. HOFFMAN, chief economist at PNC Financial Services, on the latest
unemployment figures.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Friday, July 03, 20094:05:01 PM
" The hypocrisy in Latin America about term limits is almost comic. When left-wingers like Chavez and Zelaya try -- democratically -- to repeal term limits, they are described as 'dictators.' Yet when right-wingers like President Alvaro Uribe in Colombia do exactly the same thing, the same people applaud him as 'bold' and 'brilliant.' "
Well, it is NOT in Latin America that such hypocrisy has its seat: it is precisely in NORTH America. Of course the Latin American elites, with special regard to the big press, shares the same view: they and the colonialist side of the USA are are traditional allies. But definitely not the dragon's head - as you yourself characterised so well when speaking about the coup agains Allende. (Ralf Rickli, Brazil)
(I recall a lecturer of mine who spent time in a Chilean concentration camp telling me of a prominent figure in the regime openly recognising some 15 000 people killed by the regime at the time for example.)
I don't know where Hari's figures come from.
I know you like to think of yourself as independent minded and controversial. But you aren't. You're just a horrible piece of vermin
Firozali A.Mulla
Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.
That is nonsense.
In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.
To understand recent events, you have to know a bit about Honduras's constitutional history. In 1982, my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy after years of military rule. After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.
It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions: Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.
It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions ? one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution. continued below
Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.
These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.
Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."
Continuismo ? the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely ? has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.
The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.
Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.
I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.
Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmun