Yesterday I found out about another noon press conference at the National Press Club--I went last week to see my friend Dr. Juan Almendares, U.D. Diputado Marvin Ponce, and Prosecutor Jari Dixon (whose mother and sister had been beaten and brother abducted by the military the previous day in response to his public opposition to the coup). I zoomed down from cleaning out my new office at American, this time to see a more mainstream and on the whole diplomatic (but not for this any less brave) group of Liberal Party resisters from the Honduran Congress, along with a boldly oppositional mayor and several "members of civil society," including the head of the Center for the Investigation and Defense of Human Rights in Honduras (CIPRODEH).

On arriving, I ran into Mario, who, if I didn't know better, I would have taken for extremely hungover. All of us who have been following/fighting (in our own small ways) the coup seem to have acquired that look, some--myself not included--hiding it better than others. And we're not even living with it. Honduras must be a red-eyed country right now. 15 minutes later, when the other folks arrived (Honduran time, Mario joked, although we had gotten there early), we sat down behind several members of the large delegation, only a few of which actually spoke for the press on this occasion. We spoke with Diputado Rodrigo Trochez, who affirmed that Honduras had always been a peaceful country (you say tomato? but he's right in that it avoided major civil wars). He and Mario and Sergio all spoke of their fears of civil war breaking out, saying that what not happened in the 70s and 80s could very well be happening now. Sergio asked Trochez, whose nametag was incorrectly labeled with his second last name (really, U.S. people...), what things were like in Honduras now. His response confirmed what we're getting used to hearing: "bien dividido"--"sharply divided" between the moneyed sector and the popular sector. How can anyone argue with a straight face that this is first and foremost a clash of ideologies, when it is so patently obvious that it is a class war. Specifically, a war of the wealthy against the vast poor majority. It's certainly a war with the potential to create ideologies in the sense that the elites, mired in their Cold War fantasies, argue already exist. But that's not what lies beneath. Trochez told us that in his departamento, without exaggerating, 90 or 95% of the people were with Zelaya.

-"the media doesn't cover that"
-"it's that the golpistas are the media."

They continued talking about the four or five families who controlled both the coup and the media. One of them, I think the diputado (unfortunately, I was writing too fast), told the story of when the coup leaders arrested Chimirri, the director of Hondutel, whom they despised for preventing them from further telecom profits. According to their story, Chimirri held up his handcuffed wrists in defiance, saying, "Go on, Canahuati [on of the coup media magnates]- take my picture like this and put it in your newspaper." The clip I saw showed him being carried away in the back of a pickup truck, covering his face with some papers (probably to protect himself from further brutality if more golpistas recognized it), but I hope the first account, which the media didn't show, was also true.

In their introduction, it was mentioned that the delegation would likely face violent reprisals back home. Indeed, it is incredibly brave of them to be speaking out so publicly. The first to speak was the impeccably composed Elvia Argentina Valle, representative of the national Congress from Copán. The diputada, a member of the Directorate of the National Congress, was every bit a politician, even in resistance. "We admire the democracy of the United States," she said, "and we ask that you support ours...We wish for everything to be resolved through dialogue...As members of the Directorate of the National Congress, we have been allied with Micheletti in the past. We were even opposed to the national poll (although she did use the correct word encuesta, rather than the coup's "referendum" to describe Zelaya's proposed vote, signaling and later confirming at least a post-coup alignment on that issue). But in no way did we support the ouster of the constitutional president...It cannot be possible that in order to save the constitution you must destroy the constitution [para salvar la constitución hay que destruir la constitución]."

Argentina Valle noted that more than 25 diputados (including 2 more from the Directorate) were openly opposing the coup, mostly members of the Liberal Party (Micheletti and Zelaya's party), and that many more opposed it but were afraid to do so publicly for their safety and that of their families. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" she asked. "¿La presunción de inocencia dónde quedó?" She warned that the coup could have a domino effect [I know it's not necessary to note that's a translation of efecto domino, but I can't help myself] in the whole hemisphere. In her strongest words toward the U.S. president, toward whom she expressed primarily deference and gratitude, she noted that Barack Obama could not accept this break with constitutional order. "Se trata de un golpe no sólo contra Mel Zelaya, sino contra todos los pueblos de América Latina." "This is not just a coup against Mel Zelaya; it is a coup against all the peoples/nations of Latin America."

She finished up stating that Micheletti's de facto government must accepts the seven points of Oscar Arias's plan. As everyone who supports his involvement, she mentioned along with his name that he was a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

[No time for an analysis of that plan, which to some extent favors Zelaya and the given constitution here, as I prepare in these pre-dawn hours for three other meetings/protests with the same people. See my translation of Oscar's discussion the day after it came out for a take that's closer to my own on how this plan sells out the Honduran people.]

Dip. Javier Hall (pediatrician and legislator from Yoro) was next. He gave a long list of fellow lawmakers opposed to the coup (mostly PL, but including the UD and DC party leaders), and gave an account of how it came to be that all the coup leaders/media reported that the Liberal Party unanimously supported the coup, or as he called it, the "fallacy" that the coup had taken place with the unanimous support of the Congress. A meeting with business leaders and diputados had taken place just before the coup, in which a "conspiracy" was formed, and he and his aforementioned colleagues expressed their opposition to the kind of drastic measures that ended up being taken. Business leaders and pro-coup congresspeople planned an extraordinary session of Congress for the Sunday of Zelaya's violent capture, in which Micheletti would be anointed their leader. The legislators who were known to oppose a coup were not told about the meeting in advance, and the few who were notified, were told minutes before and had no way of traveling--many of them several hours from their home districts--to the meeting. Hall himself was never contacted about the session. "What would happen if this were to occur in the United States?" he asked.

In the emergency session of Congress on June 28th, the congress members who were excluded from the meeting were replaced by non-Congress-members chosen by the coup-leaders, who voted in the excluded Congress members' names to support the coup and appoint Micheletti president. I may have read this before in one of the dozens of emails I'm getting daily, but it really is shocking. What were they thinking?"

Dip. Hall has been beaten by police while taking part in a peaceful protest (since the coup), and soldiers have been posted outside his house ever since. "What kind of democracy can they say they're defending when they are persecuting the elected representatives of the people?"

The next speaker, Amable de Jesus Hernandez, was mayor of the town of San José de Colinas in Santa Barbara. Unlike some of the diputados accompanying him on the delegation, he noted pointedly, he and many other mayors around the country were being openly persecuted because they had strongly supported Zelaya's call for a constituent assembly to explore constitutional reform. He and at least 25 other mayors were being accused by coup leaders of a variety of crimes, including stealing money related to the poll, and some (I believed Rodolfo Padilla was the name he mentioned) had been arrested. He referred to it as a cacería de brujas; a witch hunt.

The final speaker was Abencio Fernández Pineda, Coordinator of CIPRODEH. The most moving of all the speakers, Fernández Pineda seemed to embody a pueblo in the throes of a horrible tragedy. I don't know how exactly to describe his delivery- he seemed at times like he was on the verge of tears, like someone who really felt the pain--as opposed to in the Clintonian sense--of each assassination, torture and disappearance he described; yet he had a focus and a gaze that could melt steel. He listed various murders and abductions of protesters, journalists, human rights workers and others in quick succession--there wasn't time to cover all of them. He noted that there had been an open call in the media for citizens to denounce anti-coup leaders (more shades of Orwell). In the first real account I've heard of what has happened with Ramon Custodio, he noted that the national human rights ombudsman who has claimed that the murder of protesters was not a human rights abuse and no live ammo was used, despite the well-documented find of over 100 military-issue shells at the site (near Toncontín), invitó al golpe. In other words, Custodio basically called for the coup before it happened. Neither the Attorney General's office nor the National Human Rights office are protecting anyone, Fernández Pineda stressed.

"We have seen how the huge numbers of poor people--that is, the vast majority of the population--who are in the marches are totally indefensa [unarmed/defenseless]" faced by the much smaller (250 or so) groups of highly armed military police.

Shaking yet firmly, he confirmed that he and his colleagues will be persecuted and repressed after the coup leaders see their open opposition in Washington.

Questions followed. Jim Lobe (I think) from IPS asked what specific measures were being asked for by the delegation and whether they were meeting with politicians here.

I should note here as an aside that it was notable that several members of the English-language media were present at this conference. Most previous events have been nearly all Spanish-language press, and while it certainly was still a majority here, at least there were a few folks reporting in English. Throughout the conference, a simultaneous interpreter spoke into her hand and several people in the audience listened in on headphones. It was pretty distracting at first, but I was really glad she (and they) were there.

The answer from the diputados was diplomático. Yes, they were meeting with some U.S. politicians, and yes, they hope for greater pressure from the Barack Obama government, who they recognized for recognizing it as a coup [although in reality they of course recognize the difference between official recognition that implies sanctions and the current casual recognition which allows corporate lobbyists in bed with Clinton to control U.S. foreign policy...and one of the same people giving this diplomatic answer to the press later said to me that of course the U.S. could stop this immediately if they wanted to by shutting down Palmerola].

A guy from Notimex--darn it, I know I have his card somewhere in this business card mountain [update, found it: Santiago David Tavarra]--asked whether the general amnesty proposed by Arias (just another thing I strongly oppose, yet understand in the name of "peace"--better termed harmony ideology) would apply in the case of human rights violations. Happily, Fernández Pineda took this one, introducing me to a new and wonderful word. "Los derechos humanos no son amnistiables," he stated firmly. "Human rights are not amnestiable."

A woman from CNN asked a provocative question, noting that the U.S. hasn't officially defined it as a coup and asking them to comment of "rumors" [I have to put that in quotes since it's so well documented, although I know she has to ask it like that] of U.S. involvement. Diputada Argentina responded, again being ultra-politic and saying that she could not venture to say anything about U.S. involvement, and that she only hoped that Obama would continue to support them.

[I guess folks are still hoping he'll come through, and I can't blame diplomats for wanting to exhaust diplomatic channels, but I feel like everyone's acting a little bit too much like little red riding hood around Saint Obama the ill-fitted lamb.]

Still, the diputada stressed, Hondurans have a right to insurrection, but only after all diplomatic channels are exhausted. She actually then read the part in the constitution where it says so, that no one owes allegiance to a usurper government.

Another reporter asked if, given the obstinance of both sides, a violent conflict was inevitable.
Hall responded that Zelaya was acceding to all of the Nobel Peace Prize winner Arias's points, whereas Micheletti was the one refusing to budge. And por eso es imperativo que los paises amigos envían mensajes más directos, that's why it is imperative that friendly countries send more direct messages...

After Hall, Fernández made an intervention, to point out that there already is violence; but that it's all on the part of the coup government against the people. It's not about a fight between Micheletti and Zelaya, he said, although this does exist; we want the press to take notice: this is about the people. People have been blocked from protesting, and have hiked for days, without food, crossing mountains (which in our country--he noted--if you are not familiar with it, are quite high) to express their opposition to this violent coup.

A reporter asked if each new day of the coup didn't benefit Micheletti, and they all nodded vigorously and gave corresponding answers. The final, and most important question came from CNN, and I have to run off to a meeting so I'll finish it later, ISA...

**********

Back!
So, the woman from CNN asked whether Zelaya's threatened return wouldn't provoke violence. And although she was parroting the right-wing talking points of Lanny Davis et al, she seemed sincerely curious. Fernández answered very powerfully, stating "they are the ones with the guns, the death squads, who have been repressing us. The people are not armed." He also stressed that Zelaya didn't leave because he wanted to, but because he was violently abducted. It's not his return that will cause violence.

This argument amazes me. It's like the battered wife being at fault for getting beaten. It's like Honduras is being raped, and the rapist is telling her (as a feminized entity), "you were asking for it." How on earth can Zelaya--who at this point is largely beside the point of a popular insurrection centered not around the man but the democracy--how can Zelaya be held responsible for violence being carried out entirely by the other side, and for that side's threatened bloodbath?