In a follow-up to the interview, Mr. Merriam provided additional materials to Foreign Policy Digest that he argued further supported the claims of the current Honduran interim government. These materials include purported photographic evidence of corruption by officials of the former government of President Zelaya that relate to the circumstances surrounding his removal from power. This information has been made available to readers of Foreign Policy Digest alongside this interview.

The statements in the interview below do not reflect the views of Foreign Policy Digest nor the Aspen Institute. Foreign Policy Digest has not been able to independently verify the accuracy of all of the legal or factual assertions contained within it or in any of the accompanying materials. As always, we encourage your comments. 

ENGLISH CHRONOLOGY VIDEO

FPD: Explain your relationship to the Honduran conflict.

I am a Honduran citizen – I have lived there all my life. I belong to various organizations relating to civic society, particularly the Unión Civil Democrática (Editor’s Note: this translates as the “Democratic Civil Union”, and is popularly known by the initials UCD). Through the UCD, I have been able to try to influence world public opinion about Honduras.  During the crises, we have sometimes been known as a de facto Honduran foreign affairs office, since the current government is not recognized internationally.

In the meantime, we have received the support of seventeen U.S. Senators, admittedly all Republican, who have been willing to acknowledge our side of things.  We have always stated that we are willing to meet the opposition more than halfway, but we are struggling to have our side even heard.

 FPD: Many have argued that there has been a marked disconnect between the perspective of the majority of Honduran citizens and the majority of the outside world towards Zelaya’s ouster, not to mention towards Zelaya himself. Could you please describe what you feel is the level of support towards Zelaya’s ouster within the Honduran populace compared to Honduras’ government institutions?

You have to understand that the story Zelaya offers in his foreign press interviews is essentially a one-day story: that he woken up at gun point and was pushed out of the country by the military. It is a very simple argument that works well in a 15 minute interview. We argue that you have to take into account two years of history to understand what is going on in Honduras today.  

The reality is that the population is united against Zelaya, and feels tricked by how he had turned out as a president. The country is often portrayed as hopelessly divided. The reality is that much of this division is exaggerated. For 500 lempiras (Editor’s note: lempiras are the official Honduran currency) or about $25 a person, you can fill up a stadium of people to show up and cheer for anything.

The situation in Honduras changed when ALBA became involved (Editor’s note: ALBA is the acronym for the “Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América”, roughly translated as the “Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas”, a grouping of left-leaning Latin American governments that is best known for supporting socialist-oriented foreign policy that is highly critical of the U.S. government, which was founded and led by Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez). When Chavez showed up, he sought to create populist divisions  that didn’t exist previously.

FPD: Can you summarize the major criticisms of Zelaya’s presidency?

Zelaya has overstepped his constitutional role as Honduras’s president. Under him, there has been a usurpation of the other branches of government by the presidency. In a way, we are all to blame for this. We turned the other cheek when he overstepped his role in the past. We didn’t want to risk our credit rating by creating political turmoil, which was a mistake. When something was plainly illegal, we should have denounced it immediately.

FPD: For example?

On March 23, 2009, Zelaya passed an executive decree through Congress, which was for a national survey to assess public support for reforming the Honduran constitution. Now keep in mind, the Honduran constitution has 378 articles, all but five of which can be changed. These five are known pétreos articles (Editor’s Note: pétreos roughly translates as “set in stone”), which can’t be changed under any circumstance.  The constitution dictates that any politician who attempts to change these five articles will be immediately stripped of office.

However, Zelaya’s abuses of power go back much earlier than this.  For instance, ex-president Zelaya was required by the constitution to present a budget to Congress in September 2008.  As of June 2009, he yet to present any budget. Instead, he went by himself, without Congress’s required approval, to the Honduran Central Bank to approve disbursements that went even beyond the previous year’s budget.

Under Honduran law, if a budget is not approved by Congress than the president is limited to the previous year’s budget, just like in the US. However, Zelaya increased his budget spending even beyond that approved for the previous year’s budget.  In doing this he disregarded the system of checks and balances that was created through our constitution. He used funds from Chavez to do this, which is how he could arbitrarily change funds to his cabinet beyond that which was approved by Congress.

Even beyond his constitutional overstepping, Zelaya became unpopular for behaving irresponsibly as president. He did not attempt to control or even properly respond to the spread of swine flu. He was also widely criticized for his government’s slow response to the aftermath of an earthquake that devastated much of Honduras. Immediately after the earthquake, instead of taking leadership, he instead was seen standing before the media trying to get support for his national survey over the constitution.

 

FPD: Yet there’s been reported to be a high level of political apathy in Honduras even long before the crisis.

There is a high level of political apathy in Honduras. There are two parties in Honduras, and both marred by corruption, which has been very frustrating to the public. There is a widespread sense that in Honduran politics, what defines a “good” politician is the philosophy that one doesn’t “mess” with the one behind you, because otherwise the one ahead of you well get you for corruption as well. As a result, there has long been a lot of impunity for corruption committed by past Honduran presidents.

You have to remember that Zelaya was elected as just another politician within this two party system. Zelaya won with 48% of the vote and the other politician with 46%. At the time he was viewed as just another candidate. His neo-populist beliefs and policies didn’t start until a year and a half into his presidency, after he became associated with Chavez.

FPD: Would you say the majority of the population could still be described as politically apathetic?

Not really. The crisis has made us unite as a people. Recent polls have indicated that 73% of the general population is in favor of any other candidate besides Zelaya.  There has been a bipartisan response to condemn his actions and oppose his reinstatement as president.  Usually even the judiciary has an unfortunate reputation for being politicized along party lines, but they have been unanimous in opposing him. At this point, any other candidate viewed as a good candidate compared to him.

FPD: As a person now living in Honduras, to what degree have the curfews imposed by Micheletti’s interim government inhibited daily life in Honduras?

The curfew hasn’t affected daily life to the same degree as one might imagine, since they occur in the evening after the business day is over. That said, those of us in civil society are currently seeking eliminate the curfew, primarily to change international opinion about the interim government. We realize the imposition of a curfew does not look good to the outside world.

That said, the government has legitimate concerns about unrest, especially unrest caused by outside forces. The curfew has probably helped the death toll remained close to zero, despite the protests.

Have the curfews affected the Honduran economy?

The curfews increased traffic but not really noticeably affected the economy. That said, trucking companies traveling through Central America have been trying to push through the country earlier so as to be out of the country by nightfall.  Personally, I expect the curfews to be gone in next 48 hours (Editors Note: this interview was conducted on July 9).

What has affected the Honduran economy more than anything has been the global economic crisis. Twenty five per cent of Honduras’s GDP is remittances from abroad, but this has declined recently. Zelaya himself increased unemployment by increasing the minimum wage by 500%. This led hard-hit employers to lay off workers they could no longer afford, but it did increase Zelaya’s popularity in some quarters of the population. Many of the supporters were those whose salaries went up.  

FPD: What has been the impact of the restriction on loans and aid from the international community in the wake of Zelaya’s ouster?

The CABEI  and IADB have suspended disbursement starting on July 15 (Editor’s Note: these acronyms  refer to the Central American Bank for Economic Integration and the Inter-American Development Bank, two important international lending partners to Honduras). Therefore the real impact of the international community’s condemnation has yet to be fully felt. Yet even though the financial impact of these actions hasn’t hit yet, it is about to.

FPD: Zelaya has recently statements to the effect that he intends to attempt to return again. Is further violence and demonstrations viewed as inevitable for this reason?

It is not on the table for Zelaya to return within the next six months. There will be major demonstrations if he returns. In fact, the civil society union has said that if they hear of any negotiation that breaks or violates Honduran law, there will be repercussions for anyone complicit in it.

Most people don’t believe there should be political negotations with someone who so blatantly violates the law. Consider the fact that Honduras’s Secretary of State received two million dollars, or 40 million lempiras, which the State Department then gave back to presidency, none of which was in the budget. This money was discovered in plastic bags in the executive offices.

Many of us in Honduras are concerned that if there are no consequences for such crimes, then the populace will be so disgusted by the experience that a genuinely independent populist president from outside the party system will take power in the end.  People can only take so much corruption before they reject the political system entirely.

FPD: Explain what you mean about the accusations involving government officials being caught with plastic bags containing 40 million lempiras?

On Jun 23, five days before national survey was to take place, in spite of the stated opposition of the courts, the president instructed that the budget for the State department be increased by two million U.S. dollars, despite never receiving authorization for this from Congress.

The Secretary of State, Enrique Flores Lanza, gave instruction to Central Bank to disperse that money in cash to the State Department. “Witness A”, a central bank employee, called the Secretary of State directly after receiving the request to say that this was not normal way of doing things. The Secretary then assured the employee that the president said the disbursement was “ok” and was he acting on the president’s orders.

The money was then sent to State Department, where it was then sent straight to presidential palace where it was used to pay for the illegal referendum.  The money itself was split among cabinet to pay for executing the referendum across the country.

Rixi Montada, a member of Zelaya’s cabinet who was the manager of the national electric power generation company, was apprehended in hotel in southern Honduras. She was allegedly caught with 1.5 million lempiras. Moreover, the serial numbers match the 40 million that was dispersed by the Central Bank.  We captured this all on camera. (Editor’s note: see the photos attached to this interview, which allegedly document Montada’s illegal transport of the money prior to her arrest.)

FPD: Let’s shift gears for a moment to examine the underlying constitutional issues surrounding the political crisis. Many governments in Latin America have constitutional prohibitions on reelection. However, it appears that unlike nearly all other governments in the hemisphere, Honduras lacks constitutional mechanisms to allow for voters to amend the articles dealing with reelection. Why does Honduras differ from most other democratic governments in the world in this respect?

You have to remember that our constitution is a young one, less than 28 years old.  These articles were added after to protect democracy after decades of authoritarian governments.

Under our constitution, anyone who “manifests the intention” to change the prohibition on reelections shall be viewed as a “traitor” to democracy under Article 239, and shall be immediately stripped of his powers. Also, Article 323 states that all government agents are subject to the law. Thus, no presidential immunity exists in Honduras, unlike other countries.

Because there is no presidential immunity, there can be no impeachment like in the U.S., or even a impeachment process for that matter.  A president accused of a crime is just treated like a regular citizen and can be subject to an arrest warrant like anyone else.

The two big constitutional articles implicated in the current crisis are Articles 5 and 239.   On June 25, when Zelaya made a decree announcing his intent to pursue the national survey on convening a constitutional assembly and then printed that decree in a national newspaper, they came into effect.  The difference between his decree on June 25 and the previous statements in support of the survey I’ve already mentioned was that he changed the wording this time to say that it was a survey soliciting opinions on the question of “convening a constitution assembly”, which he never said in such explicit terms before, and that he actually published the decree. The Supreme Court said that by engaging in these two acts, he kicked in article 239 and so he immediately ceased to president under the rules established by our constitution. 

FPD: Yet by automatically stripping politicians of their positions without the right to defend themselves in a court of law, doesn’t the Honduran constitution seem to be depriving those politicians of their basic rights to due process?

You should keep in mind that the phrase used in the constitution “traitor to the country”, refers to a political crime with political consequences, not a criminal matter. I’m not sure what the consequences are for violating it other than losing political office, since the issue has yet to go before the Supreme Court. I know of some constitutional scholars who may have a better answer about this than I have.

In the end, our fight is against international opinion; to get the world to understand what took place was the proper process as demanded by our constitution.  As long as the term coup d’etat is used by the rest of the world, no one will support what has taken place.

FPD: But then why have the military expel him? Why not let him return and engage in the judicial process?

The armed forces have been given a responsibility under the constitution to protect the constitution itself. So it wasn’t acting unconstitutionally when it got involved.

The reason we don’t want Zelaya returning now is because the minute he lands on Honduran soil he will be arrested assuming we follow the law.  It will create more of conflict within Honduras and with the outside world.  

By the time he arrives, everything will be well-documented and made public, so that the international community will understand why we in Honduras need to arrest him. By then, when all of his illegal actions come to light, he may not still want to come.

In the meantime, Zelaya has made clear he is willing to use extra-constitutional means to enter the presidential office – to force his way, if need be. This will lead to more violence, which we want to avoid.

FPD: Zelaya only had a few months left in his term when he was ousted. If he was so unpopular, it sounds like he would have had little credible chance of changing constitution. Why didn’t the opposition just try to wait his term out instead of ousting him? 

The majority of the country considered referendum illegal, so preventing the president from engaging in illegal activity was obviously a major reason.

Keep in mind this all was a last resort. Many institutions, including civil society organizations, were urging people not go out to vote, so as to show the lack of support for the referendum. In the end, we decided we didn’t want to risk having most of the country refuse to take part but then have him claim a mandate for a new constitution even with a low turn out because only his supporters showed up to vote. But at the same time, we didn’t want to participate in a vote that our own courts had declared was clearly illegal.

FPD: If most people support Micheletti’s government and oppose Zelaya, why hasn’t the interim government offered to hold their own plebiscite to that effect, which seems like might be more effective in improving international opinion of it than holding anti-Zelaya protests?

Recently, some people have in fact offered suggestions for a plebiscite to show popular opposition to Zelaya. It was decided not to purse the idea because it was felt that many in the public would understand plebiscites to mean the same thing as a national survey. The government didn’t want to be accused of being hypocritical for not allowing Zelaya to hold a national survey but then holding a “survey” itself.

FPD: Even if it can be argued that stripping Zelaya of his post was mandated by Honduras’s constitution, wasn’t his forcible exile by the military a constitutional violation as well?

You are correct. Exiling Zelaya violated Article 102, which states that no Honduran can be involuntarily expatriated to a foreign government. The military was aware of this, but it defends its decision to exile him based on Art 59, which states that protection of life is the supreme obligation of the state. So since that the military was basically given two options, to arrest Zelaya and risk deadly violence and uprisings, or to exile Zelaya and violate a provision of the constitution, the military felt that constitution demanded it take the course that was least likely to result in the loss of human life.  A lot people viewed their decision as having saved lives.

Even so, the prosecutor has opened up an investigation into the question of abuse of Zelaya’s constitutional rights by the military that may have been caused by the expatriation. Moreover, if any congress member had been privy to the military’s decision before it happened, then they could be held liable for supporting the violation of the constitution. So far no one has admitted to this, but it is being investigated.  Right now only the military is “falling on sword” for their actions, and they have been willing to accept this.

FPD: What are the views of Micheletti’s government towards the more active role played by the Organization of American States (OAS) so far in resolving the crisis?

Honduras is upset with OAS. The OAS judged Honduras without ever listening to both sides. They didn’t recognize the interim government and so it’s been very hard to work with them.  As a result, we’re instead focusing efforts with that count.  We’re trying to work with the influential countries in our neighborhood and in the region - countries like Panama, Colombia, Canada, and the US.

One thing that has helped us greatly in the eyes of international opinion is Cardinal Rodriguez, Honduras’s cardinal, who said there was no coup in Honduras. Suddenly, people were more willing to listen to us. 

We think time benefits us in having people come to our side, but it could end up costing lives as the financial cut-off starts to take its toll.

 FPD: You’ve frequently mentioned Zelaya’s recent alliance with Chavez, and the opposition that has aroused among many in Honduras. Would you describe the Honduran crisis as being in some way connected to a larger geopolitical struggle between Venezuela and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas on one side and the United States on the other?

We are on the frontlines of a struggle over two very different visions for the future of the region. Honduras could end up being the “mouse that roars” against the aggression of Chavez and his allies, but we can’t last long if we continue to remain so isolated.

Chaves has become an expert in exploiting democratic loopholes. He’s done it in Venezuela and is now trying to do the same thing in Honduras.

In the end, Honduras will be on the map. It could be something grand; we could show the hemisphere that it can stand up to Chavez. But the US will have to support Honduras for that to happen.

This crisis is truly a threat to our democracy, but not in the way it has been portrayed internationally. The threat to democracy has been happening for a long time. We have allowed it happen by not responding to the institutional roots of poverty and by not defending the constitution strongly enough in the past. There are bigger issues involved here than who should be our president. There are basic principles at stake.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites