Archive for ‘Honduras’

November 17, 2009

Que dijo Transparencia Internacional sobre Venezuela

Muy interesante, Transparencia Internacional hizo publico su reporte anual y a que no saben que paso. Raspo al Chavismo otra vez.

Venezuela ocupo la posición 162. Pero para tener una idea de que es 162, uno tiene que saber como se calculo, cual fue nuestro score, etc. Después de todo, podríamos 162 entre 10.000, eso no hubiera sido muy malo … O podríamos ser 162 cuando todos los países digamos unos 180 tienen buenos scores, digamos sobre 5 en una escala del 0 al 10. Eso tampoco hubiera sido tan malo.

Pero la realidad mundial, particularmente Africa-Musulman-Latina es mucho mas cruel, mucho mas REAL.

Resulta que somos 162 entre 180 países. Resulta que nuestro score fue 1.9 en la escala del 0 al 10. Resulta que estamos tan mal, pero tan mal, que somos penúltimos en el continente Americano, dejando a solo un país con el dudoso honor de ser el mas corrupto del continente Haití.

Las cosas para el ALBA no se leen bien en este reporte … Bolivia es la mejorcita en la posición 120. Luego los demás, y por supuesto como mencione antes, cierra el cuento Venezuela.

Dice la pagina web en Ingles:

“Stemming corruption requires strong oversight by parliaments, a well performing judiciary, independent and properly resourced audit and anti-corruption agencies, vigorous law enforcement, transparency in public budgets, revenue and aid flows, as well as space for independent media and a vibrant civil society,” said Huguette Labelle, Chair, Transparency International.

Highest scorers in the 2009 CPI are New Zealand at 9.4, Denmark at 9.3, Singapore and Sweden tied at 9.2 and Switzerland at 9.0. These scores reflect political stability, long-established conflict of interest regulations and solid, functioning public institutions.

Que podemos traducir mas o menos así:

“Detener la corrupción requiere de un fuerte compromiso de los parlamentos, un buen sistema de justicia, agencias anti corrupción independientes y bien dotadas de recursos, agentes de la ley dispuestos, transparencia en los presupuestos, y un espacio para medios de comunicación libres y una sociedad civil vibrante”, así dijo Hugette Labelle, Director Principal de Transparencia Internacional.

Las posiciones mas altas en el 2009 las ocuparon Nueva Zelandia (9.4),  Dinamarca (9.3), Singapur y Suecia (9.2), y Suiza (9.0). Estas posiciones reflejan estabilidad política, Larga historia de regulación sobre los conflictos de intereses, y solidas instituciones publicas.

Que mas puede uno decir cierto??? El que tenga ojos que vea, el que quiera leer que lea. Les dejamos unos gráficos.

September 25, 2009

Nota a Micheletti

Laureano Márquez
TalCual / ND

Septiembre 25, 2009

El otro día, encontrábase el suscrito escuchando la radio, o lo que va quedando de ella, concretamente el programa de la profesora Marta Colomina, que esa mañana hablaba bajo la forma de Vladimir Villegas, cuando oigo a uno de los invitados, de convicciones profundamente oficialistas, afirmar que Micheletti, el presidente de facto-constitucional de Honduras era un dictador y ofrecía como muestra de hasta dónde llegaba este hombre en su afán tiranizador dos hechos incontestables: la represión con gases lacrimógenos de manifestantes afectos al presidente c o n s t i t u c i o n a l – d e – f a c t o , Manuel Zelaya, y el cierre de una planta televisiva en la cual se manifestaban conceptos contrarios a los puntos de vista del gobierno hondureño.

En ese momento sentí que entre los venezolanos hay muchos más acuerdos que discrepancias, porque a mí la posición de este camarada me pareció absolutamente razonable.

Efectivamente dos rasgos distintivos de las dictaduras latinoamericanas han sido, por una parte, la represión de la protesta popular y, por la otra, el cierre de medios de comunicación y el encarcelamiento de opositores para evitar la libre manifestación de la disidencia. Y eso es precisamente lo que está haciendo el gobernante hondureño. Así que por este medio me permito hacerle un llamado…

Micheletti: No debes reprimir manifestaciones pacíficas con gases lacrimógenos, ni con violencia. Te equivocas si crees que así vas a acallar la indignación de la gente.

Soldados que acompañan a Micheletti: Recuerden que toda violación de los derechos humanos que hagan allá en Honduras será sancionada conforme al Estatuto de Roma y uno de los nombres que se le da a Roma es el de “ciudad eterna”, es decir, que la ciudad no prescribe. Por otro lado no podrán argumentar en su defensa que obedecían órdenes del Jefe del Estado, porque eso no atenúa la violación. Soldados hondureños: No es un cuento, algún día Micheletti se irá del poder y ese día ustedes quedarán solos ante el juicio de la historia y ante el otro.

Sr Micheletti: Si cree usted que cerrando plantas de televisión va a lograr que la gente no piense, no tenga criterio y en general no disienta, se equivoca. Los medios de comunicación libres son uno de los más claros signos de la existencia de pluralidad democrática en un país. Cada vez que usted persigue medios y cierra emisoras de radio, la imagen que proyecta es la de un tirano que quiere silenciar la disidencia. No encarcele a los estudiantes por protestar, señor Micheletti, porque eso, más temprano que tarde, se volverá en su contra. Negocie, señor Presidente, dialogue, que ningún gobierno puede vivir en enfrentamiento permanente.

Bueno, era eso, en nombre de mi compatriota chavista y en el mío propio.

Gracias.

July 1, 2009

The Wages of Chavismo

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

JULY 1, 2009

The Wages of Chavismo

The Honduran coup is a reaction to Chávez’s rule by the mob. As military “coups” go, the one this weekend in Honduras was strangely, well, democratic. The military didn’t oust President Manuel Zelaya on its own but instead followed an order of the Supreme Court. It also quickly turned power over to the president of the Honduran Congress, a man from the same party as Mr. Zelaya. The legislature and legal authorities all remain intact. We mention these not so small details because they are being overlooked as the world, including the U.S. President, denounces tiny Honduras in a way that it never has, say, Iran. President Obama is joining the U.N., Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and other model democrats in demanding that Mr. Zelaya be allowed to return from exile and restored to power. Maybe it’s time to sort the real from the phony Latin American democrats. Associated Press The situation is messy, and we think the Hondurans would have been smarter — and better off — not sending Mr. Zelaya into exile at dawn. Mr. Zelaya was pressing ahead with a nonbinding referendum to demand a constitutional rewrite to let him seek a second four-year term. The attorney general and Honduran courts declared the vote illegal and warned he’d be prosecuted if he followed through. Mr. Zelaya persisted, even leading a violent mob last week to seize and distribute ballots imported from Venezuela. However, the proper constitutional route was to impeach Mr. Zelaya and then arrest him for violating the law. Yet the events in Honduras also need to be understood in the context of Latin America’s decade of chavismo . Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez was democratically elected in 1998, but he has since used every lever of power, legal and extralegal, to subvert democracy. He first ordered a rewrite of the constitution that allowed his simple majority in the national assembly grant him the power to rule by decree for one year and to control the judiciary. In 2004 he packed the Supreme Court with 32 justices from 20. Any judge who rules against his interests can be fired. He made the electoral tribunal that oversees elections his own political tool, denying opposition requests to inspect voter rolls and oversee vote counts. The once politically independent oil company now hires only Chávez allies, and independent television stations have had their licenses revoked. Mr. Chávez has also exported this brand of one-man-one-vote-once democracy throughout the region. He’s succeeded to varying degrees in Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina and Nicaragua, where his allies have stretched the law and tried to dominate the media and the courts. Mexico escaped in 2006 when Felipe Calderón linked his leftwing opponent to chavismo and barely won the presidency. In Honduras Mr. Chávez funneled Veneuzelan oil money to help Mr. Zelaya win in 2005, and Mr. Zelaya has veered increasingly left in his four-year term. The Honduran constitution limits presidents to a single term, which is scheduled to end in January. Mr. Zelaya was using the extralegal referendum as an act of political intimidation to force the Congress to allow a rewrite of the constitution so he could retain power. The opposition had pledged to boycott the vote, which meant that Mr. Zelaya would have won by a landslide. Such populist intimidation has worked elsewhere in the region, and Hondurans are understandably afraid that, backed by Chávez agents and money, it could lead to similar antidemocratic subversion there. In Tegucigalpa yesterday, thousands demonstrated against Mr. Zelaya, and new deputy foreign minister Marta Lorena Casco told the crowd that “Chávez consumed Venezuela, then Bolivia, after that Ecuador and Nicaragua, but in Honduras that didn’t happen.” It’s no accident that Mr. Chávez is now leading the charge to have Mr. Zelaya reinstated, and on Monday the Honduran traveled to a leftwing summit in Managua in one of Mr. Chávez’s planes. The U.N. and Organization of American States are also threatening the tiny nation with ostracism and other punishment if it doesn’t readmit him. Meanwhile, the new Honduran government is saying it will arrest Mr. Zelaya if he returns. This may be the best legal outcome, but it also runs the risk of destabilizing the country. We recall when the Clinton Administration restored Bertrand Aristide to Haiti, only to have the country descend into anarchy. As for the Obama Administration, it seems eager to “meddle” in Honduras in a way Mr. Obama claimed was counterproductive in Iran. Yet the stolen election in Iran was a far clearer subversion of democracy than the coup in Honduras. As a candidate, Mr. Obama often scored George W. Bush’s foreign policy by saying democracy requires more than an election — a free press, for example, civil society and the rule of law rather than rule by the mob. It’s a point worth recalling before Mr. Obama hands a political victory to the forces of chavismo in Latin America.

July 1, 2009

Honduras’s Coup Is President Zelaya’s Fault

By Alvaro Vargas Llosa
Updated: Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Any time a bunch of soldiers break into a presidential palace, pick up the president and put him on a flight to exile, as happened in Honduras last Sunday, you have a “coup.” But, unlike most coup targets in Latin America’s tortuous republican history, Honduras’s deposed president, Manuel Zelaya, bears the biggest responsibility for his overthrow.

A member of the rancid oligarchy he now decries, Zelaya took office in 2006 as the leader of one of the two center-right parties that have dominated Honduran politics for decades. His general platform, his support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and his alliances with business organizations gave no inkling of the fact that halfway into his term he would become a political cross-dresser.

Suddenly, in 2007, he declared himself a socialist and began to establish close ties with Venezuela. In December of that year, he incorporated Honduras into Petrocaribe, a mechanism set up by Hugo Chávez for lavishing oil subsidies on Latin American and Caribbean countries in exchange for political subservience. Then his government joined the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA), Venezuela’s answer to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, ostensibly a commercial alliance but in practice a political conspiracy that seeks to expand populist dictatorship to the rest of Latin America.

Last year, following the script originally laid out by Chávez in Venezuela and adopted by Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Zelaya announced that he would hold a referendum to set upa constituent assembly that would change the constitution that barred him from reelection. In the next few months, every legal body in Honduras — the electoral tribunal, the Supreme Court, the attorney general, the human rights ombudsman — declared the referendum unconstitutional. According to the Honduran constitution (articles 5, 373 and 374), presidential term limits cannot be changed under any circumstance; only Congress can modify the constitution; and political institutions are not subject to referendums. Honduras’s Congress, Zelaya’s own Liberal Party and a majority of Hondurans (in various polls) expressed their horror at the prospect of having Zelaya perpetuate himself and bring Honduras into the Chávez fold. In defiance of court orders, Zelaya persisted. Surrounded by a friendly mob, he broke into the military installations where the ballots were kept and ordered them distributed. The courts declared that Zelaya had placed himself outside the law, and Congress began an impeachment procedure.

This is the context in which the military, in an ill-advised move that turned a perfectly legal mechanism for stopping Zelaya into a coup, expelled the president. The fact that the constitutional procedure was subsequently followed by having Congress appoint the head of the legislative body, Roberto Micheletti, as interim president, and that the elections scheduled for November have not been canceled, is not enough to dissipate the cloud of illegitimacy that hangs over the new government. This factor has disarmed Zelaya’s critics in the international community in the face of a well-coordinated campaign led by Chávez to reinstate him and denounce the coup as an oligarchic assault on democracy.

That said, the international response, seeking to reinstate Zelaya without any mention of his illegal acts, has been highly inadequate. The Organization of American States, led by its secretary general, José Miguel Insulza, has acted like Venezuela’s poodle. At Chávez’s request, Insulza went to Nicaragua, where a summit of the anti-democratic ALBA group became the hemisphere’s political center of gravity after the coup. Insulza and other populist presidents said nothing about Zelaya’s dictatorial conduct leading up to last Sunday’s events and simply echoed Venezuela’s self-serving stance. Efforts by other countries, including the United States and many South American governments, to put some nuance into the public statements were neutralized by the spectacle unfolding in Nicaragua, which was widely reported across the Spanish-speaking world. It was sad to see Insulza suddenly remember his organization’s Inter-American Democratic charter in relation to Honduras — the same rules of democratic conduct that Chávez, Morales, Correa and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega have violated on numerous occasions while the OAS looked the other way.

The crisis in Honduras should bring to people’s attention this truth about Latin America today: The gravest threat to liberty comes from elected populists who are seeking to subject the institutions of the law to their megalomaniac whims. Given that scenario, the hemisphere’s response to Honduras’s crisis has undermined those who are trying to prevent populism from taking the region back to the times when it was forced to choose between left-wing revolution and military dictatorships.

Alvaro Vargas Llosa is the editor of “Lessons From the Poor” and director of the Center on Global Prosperity at the Independent Institute. He is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. His e-mail address is AVLlosa@independent.org .