Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Confidential Wikileak on Honduras. Coup or Counter Revolution?
Share:
by utilaeastwind | November 29, 2010 at 11:45 am
468 views | 2 Recommendations | 8 comments
Photos
Wikileaks has weighed in on the removal of President Manuel Zelaya in releasing a confidential communication from Ambassador Hugo Llorens to the White House.
This document makes the determination that the Congress and Military acted illegally in Zelaya's removal and that the parties involved have not made the 'intellectual leap" in justifying their actions.
In the communication Proconsul Hugo Llorens states that:
"near unanimity among the institutions of the state and the political class that Zelaya had abused his powers in violation of the Constitution, but with some ambiguity what to do about it. Faced with that lack of clarity, the military and/or whoever ordered the coup fell back on what they knew -- the way Honduran presidents were removed in the past: a bogus resignation letter and a one-way ticket to a neighboring country. No matter what the merits of the case against Zelaya, his forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and Micheletti's ascendance as "interim president" was totally illegitimate."
Based on this analysis it could be said that the institutions involved conducted a Preemptive Counter Revolution to defend the status quo and prevent the Republic of Honduras falling into the hands of a Socialist Revolutionary.
In revolutions and counter revolutions the international community, by recognition of the resulting government, decide the fate of the State. In the case of Honduras, most western Countries have recognized the current newly elected government. Opposing nations include Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Brazil.
This is the sole document released from Wikileaks during this very unstable period in Honduras.
Advertisement
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
utilaeastwind
East Harbour, The Bay Islands, Honduras
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 13:42 on November 29th, 2010
" prevent the Republic of Honduras falling into the hands of a Socialist Revolutionary"
at 13:50 on November 29th, 2010
For purposes of this article the words "Socialist Revolutionary" in the context of the Revolution under the command of Hugo Chavez.
The powers that be in Honduras had a strong belief that Hugo Chavez was behind the sudden radicalization of Manuel Zelaya.
at 13:49 on November 29th, 2010
Ask me what I think and I will say: 1) the pursuit of people to determine their fate as individuals with freedom and liberty is up to them; 2) other nations including the US may influence the destiny of peoples' pursuit of freedom by offering economic assistance; 3) in circumstances where foreign powers are fighting to impose less freedom and less liberty on people, the policy of the US can and should be to side with the people and against the dictators and forms of government that wield military power; 4) military overthrows that are not aligned with democratic outcomes are unacceptable.
The most desirable avenue is for the US to stay out of developing nations civil business. It is when others become involved that the US too has self interest.
Socialism is not the enemy as that is a viable economic alternative. The enemies include: dictators and military forces that subordinate individuals and their liberties.
YJ
at 14:24 on November 29th, 2010
4) military overthrows that are not aligned with democratic outcomes are unacceptable.
This is a good point.
In the case of Honduras some countries recognize the new government of Pepe Lobo, yet others do not.
Honduras has become a battle ground in the Chavez-Iran Axis and the current Global Power Structure, formed after WWII. Hugo Chavez is very clear that he is actively working to destroy the American Empire and Honduras is strategically important for many reasons.
This may not be a battle of wrong or right, more so it is a battle of Left vs Right.
at 14:30 on November 29th, 2010
I will have to study this more. You can help if you want by bringing more to light about Hugo Chavez. You introduce the terms left and right but I don't know what that means. Some people might think democracy is left. Socialistic democracy is more left. What is right? Where do dictators fit?
at 14:51 on November 29th, 2010
I have written many article related to Hugo Chavez and the conflict in Honduras.
The posting Crisis in Honduras. The World needs answers. is a compilation of articles, written by myself, directly related to the current conflict.
Again, let me know what you think.
at 17:46 on November 29th, 2010
The role of US in toppling elected government is not a secret,Wikileaks has vindicated the dirty game,with all nasty rules.Promotion of individual freedom,defined by the US administration is freedom to exploit,plunder and pillage and for that genuine purpose huge funds are made availble to those who want to persue this great ideal.School of Americas provide training to carry out acts of sabotage to overthrow an elected government,which by irresponsible behaviour of its peoples goes 'socialist',communist' or offers an alternate development model,opposed to capitalism.Peoples responsible behaviour calls for establishment of an economic order of loot and scoot.WB,IMF and MNCs are willing to help.
at 08:20 on November 30th, 2010
Your comment does have merit.
The problem is that the opposition to the current world order does not have anything to offer the world other than conflict. The people who are currently running the world, in the event of a revolution, will simply change shirts and we will have the same thing all over again.
The greatest threat to the current world order is global population levels. In the USA they have managed to keep birth rates down through abortion and "woman's liberation" (double the workforce and reduce population at the same time).
The rest of the world has not submitted to this plan and thus is deemed irresponsible, regressive or oppressive. The only and "final solution" to this problem will be to have these "overpopulated" countries fight it out and bring population levels back to an amount that is "manageable".
This could be considered a sick point of view and it is one that I do not per-scribe to. However it is one that has merit from the perspective of those who wish to maintain control.