Thursday, July 09, 2009


1- If the events of June 28, 2009 were indeed a 'coup', (I'm of the school that disagrees with that assertion, and prefers to look at those events as a 'restoration of constitutionality'), then it was one of the world's first 'velvet' coups: both bloodless and popular.

2- Given Mel's anti-American rhetoric and policies, why did his wife and son seek refuge at the American embassy and later at the American ambassador's home? Wouldn't the Venezuelan or Ecuadorian embassy have been a better sanctuary? Wouldn't they have felt more secure and blissful there?

3- If the negotiations in Costa Rica lead to Mel's return to Honduras, will he come back with his 'feathers plucked'. By this, I mean will he come back strictly as a figurehead without any powers? If so, this might not necessarily be a bad thing as this would a humiliation for him. It would actually be nice to see him transform from a 'bull' to a 'steer'.

4- And, related to no. 3, what about the criminal charges that have been filed against Mel? Will he return to Honduras to face indictment? I don't think he would agree to that option. Will amnesty be granted? That would be an insult to the Honduran people that endured his corrupt rule for way too long. If Mel were granted amnesty, what about his family? His son has also been linked to corruption and the drug trade. Will Mel return only to see his son thrown into jail?

5- This leads me to thinking about corruption in general. The new government has already made strides against corruption (arresting Chimirri, etc.) This was way past due. But will it continue? Or was it strictly 'window dressing'? Has the new government begun a new paradigm in Honduran civil and political society that will endure? Or ironically, will the end result of the Costa Rican negotiations be a return to 'business as usual'?

6- I still have not heard any criticisms from the OAS nor any explanations for its failure to act regarding Mel's illegal behaviour towards Honduran Supreme Court rulings and Honduran Congressional acts? Why are they ignoring Mel's unconstitutional, power grabbing actions? I have the same question for the world media. Did it ever occur to them that the very reason the Honduran Constitution is inflexible in its limitation to one term only for a president is to prevent power hungry would-be despots (like Mel) from continuing in power?

7- I consider the unfortunate death of a demonstrator this past Sunday to be blood on Mel's hands. He knew and even encouraged mob behavior in order to stroke his inexhaustible ego. Against all advice, (including the Cardinal's warning of possible bloodshed), he insisted on his 'airshow'. This unfortunate death would have been avoided except for Mel's actions. At the very least, it's misfeasance on Mel's part.

8- The U.S. ambassador has already commented on the use of the word 'negrito', and an apology has been issued. But I'm still wondering whether Obama actually knew where Tegucigalpa was before June 28 or not? Do I hear silence on the part of the US government? Maybe this is reason enough to reinstate geography classes in elementary schools. Maybe free subscriptions to National Geographic should have been a part of the stimulus bill.

No comments: