Honduras envoy says "ordered out" of U.N. rights body

Source: Reuters

Tuesday September 15, 2009
Honduras envoy says "ordered out" of U.N. rights body
By Robert Evans

GENEVA (Reuters) - The Honduran ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva said on Monday he had been ordered out of the U.N. Human Rights Council after other Latin American countries said he represented an "illegal" regime.

After a day of confusion which stalled the start of the three-week session of the 47-nation Council, the envoy -- J-Delmer Urbizo -- left the hall declaring loudly in English and Spanish: "We will be back! Volveremos!"

The dramatic scenes came after Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Cuba insisted that Delmer Urbizo, who has served as ambassador in Geneva for the past three years, could not stay unless he was approved by ousted president Manuel Zelaya.

The Human Rights Council's Belgian president Alex Van Meuwen told the envoy he could not speak in response since Honduras is only an observer in the forum, and said he should leave while his credentials were checked.

"I was ordered out. They have put security guards on me to make sure I left," Delmer Urbizo told reporters as blue-shirted U.N. police stood alongside. "But we will be back, make no mistake, and these people will see what they have done."



Read more: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/9/15/worldupdates/2009-09-15T000720Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-424518-1&sec=Worldupdates

The Council should only represent legitimate regimes.

Just curious, they both came to power in undemocratic coups, atleast Honduras seems to be planning a election.

The difference of course is that in the US and Cuba a popular revolution was waged by the people to overthrow a corrupt dictatorial regime and replace it with a democratic one. In Honduras a select group of aristocrats overthrew a popular democratically elected president - very different situations.

for his assistance in persuading President Fulgencio Batista to end torturing, dismembering, and murdering their young sons in his round up of suspected leftists. As soon as they reached the ambassador, the police turned the fire hoses on them.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com.nyud.net:8090/2498/3802964406_eb4d833af5_o.png http://www.latinamericanstudies.org.nyud.net:8090/cuban-rebels/protest-1.gif

It's hard to say why you think the Castro regime installed in January 1959 was a democratic regime. They didn't hold elections. Later, the communist dictatorship installed by Castro had a constitution written whereby only communists could run for office. Furthermore, they have violated their own constitution by refusing to hear proposals to change it duly signed by the required number of citizens.

Just an observation: Leftists turn out to be just as bad as rightists when it comes to being ethical.

~snip~
No party is permitted to campaign or endorse candidates for election, including the Communist Party. Candidates are elected on an individual referendum basis without formal party involvement, though elected assemblies predominantly consist of members of the dominant party alongside non-affiliated candidates.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Cuba

~~~~~~~~~~
We all know better than that. You are wasting your time. There are DU'ers here who have been in Cuba during election seasons, and they have a wildly different picture from the one you're attempting to sell here.

~~~~~~~~~~
Cuba’s Electoral System
by Jorge Soberon, Cuban Interests Section in Washington (April 2005)

Municipal level
Every two and a half years between 2 and 8 candidates to be delegates to each Municipal Assembly (Cuba has 169 Municipalities) are elected directly by the electoral constituency with more than 50 percent of the vote. To be part of the electoral constituency or to be elected at this level anyone needs to be 16 years old or more. There is no propaganda only photographs and biographies of the candidates. Voting is secret and voluntary. In the end the elected delegates to the Municipal Assemblies happens to be half of the delegates to the National Assembly of the Peoples Power. The Provincial Electoral Commission determines the size of each electoral constituency within its territory. Any organization at all, not even the Communist Party, proposes any delegates to the Municipal Assembly. Any person, whether is a member of the Communist Party or not, can propose anyone to be a delegate. The size of the electoral constituency at the Municipal level is different according to the number of the population at that level. In the case of Municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants there can be different electoral constituencies within the territory. Cuba has more than 11 million inhabitants and about 15 000 electoral constituencies.

Provincial and National Level

Every five years delegates to each Provincial Assembly (Cuba has 14 provinces) and delegates to the National Assembly of the Peoples Power are elected. To be a delegate at those levels or to elect any delegate at those levels you have to be at least 18 years old. The Municipal Assemblies created by the Municipal elections described above, postulates all the candidates to be delegates to the Provincial Assemblies and to be delegates to the National Assembly of the Peoples Power, in a date that is determined by the Council of State. All this candidates are either already elected delegates to the Municipal Assemblies or personalities that live in the specified territory. Again, there is no propaganda only photographs and biographies of the candidates at both levels. Voting is secret and voluntary. Any organization at all, not even the Communist Party, proposes any delegates to these levels. Any person, whether it is a member of the Communist Party or not, can propose anyone to be a delegate. Delegates to both levels proposed by each Municipality Assembly are elected with more than 50 percent of the vote of each Municipality electoral constituency. There are delegates of the National Assembly that are priests, other delegates are not members of the Communist Party.

More:
http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/topics/government/0504elecsys.htm

Oh, but don't worry the Cuban dog catchers are democratically elected.

Interesting. So there is a Communist Party, but there can't be any other kind of party, right? Don't you think it's silly to describe their system using a cut and paste from a document written by Jorge Soberon, one of the oligarchs who run the regime? Don't you think it's extraordinary to believe that, amongst a population of about 10 million, the only ones who organize themselves happen to be Communists? And no other party can exist?

The only thing you have shown me is that indeed, leftists just like rightists are as blind about their own faults as anybody else. Cuba is a dictatorship. It's a gerontocracy run by a feeble old man whose ideas are obsolete, and have put his nation in dire conditions. Once the communists fall (and its guaranteed they will as they did everywhere else), it'll take a century for the country to recover from the mess they made - although I doubt they'll truly ever be what they could have been if the communists hadn't taken over the place.

Cuban and Honduras coups.

Oh wait? You don't? So how exactly do you qualify the statement "a popular revolution", so a anti-democratic coup can be justified and legitimate if it is a "popular revolution".

You are aware that you're just pulling that out of your ass right?

#1 The Cuban revolution was not a coup - it was a popular revolution - facts, history - you know, stuff like that - back that up.
#2 Neither the American nor Cuban revolutions were undemocratic. In fact, both were pro-democratic.
#3 The Honduran coup is undemocratic, insofar as it involved the other throw of a democratically elected leader.

What is so hard to understand about this? Nixon or Bush or someone told you that Cuba was evil because communism is evil because communism means the end of a capitalist system that preys on the worker to make the owners wealthy and that personal wealth and ownership are great and godly? You bought that?

Or do you fall into the newer camp that basically seems to say "those brown people don't know what's best for themselves"?

Either way, I don't get it.

Nor are you backing up what you're saying with any sort of source or generally accepted definition of either term to be sourced.

Also Cuba is not a democracy.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.html

http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/cl_en_2008.pdf


You can take that up with HRW, the democracy Index and reporters without borders.

was recognized - Zelaya was elected.

Hope you are just teasing us.

If not, read the reasons why he was thrown out by the right wing. It's corporate and military - one world order according to the those who are calling it to order for the riches and control it brings to them.

Atleast, that is what they are claiming, get back to me when cuba atleast plans to do the same thing.

The supposed "illegality" of a mandate vote that the legitimate government planned to hold was the reason the coup leaders used to overthrow it. If they now try this, it's the hypocrisy to end all hypocrisy.

I said atleast they are making a attempt at the appearance of a democracy.

Again, tell me when the Castro wonder twins put themselves up for a vote.

Here:

"Following intestinal surgery from an undisclosed digestive illness believed to have been diverticulitis,<10> Castro transferred his responsibilities to the First Vice-President, his younger brother Raúl Castro, on July 31, 2006. On February 19, 2008, five days before his mandate was to expire, he announced he would neither seek nor accept a new term as either president or commander-in-chief.<11><12> On February 24, 2008, the National Assembly elected Raúl Castro to succeed him as the President of Cuba.<1>"

Found by searching for "Fidel Castro" on wikipedia. It's not complicated.

It seems the older Castro continues to give broad guidance, while the younger one, who understands a shift to capitalism is required for the country to rebuild its economy, has his hands tied. I do find it interesting that, in a country of 10 million, the rulers are old, extremely old men, and younger men who atempt to rise up the ranks end up fired or arrested. It's definitely a gerontocracy like the Soviet Union had near its end. I wouldn't give the communist system in Cuba 2 years of life after Fidel Castro dies.

While looking at this the other day, I cam across a figure: 60% - that's the percentage of members of the national assembly who were born after the revolution. Sure, most of the high ranking leaders are old men, but that's the case in many countries, especially the US. It was even more so the case when our country was first founded - Adams, Washington, Franklin, etc. were not young men. All of this is beside the point really, because different countries have different forms of government, and that's fine by me - I know that if I had to form a government for some reason that I certainly wouldn't use the US as a model, so I can't blame Cuba for not doing so. I really doubt that capitalism is coming to Cuba - capitalism is now being acknowledged more than ever before in my lifetime as the crime against humanity that it is. While not a wealthy country, Cuba does have a 100% literacy rate and a very educated populace. I think they know when to call a spade a spade.

The comment that capitalism is a crime against humanity is somewhat extreme. The fact is that nations which adopt a well managed form of capitalism (ie where most economic activities are carried out by private means rather than state-owned enterprises)are both more democratic and richer than communist nations such as Cuba or North Korea.

Regarding the make up of the national assembly, seeing that Castro has been running his communist dictatorship in Cuba for 50 years, it's not hard to see the assembly (which is merely a rubber stamp) has some younger people in it. As to your comment that Cuba's gerontocracy isn't one, it's kinda funny. They have an 83 year old maximum leader, a 78 year old president, the vicepresident, Almeida, was another 80'ish youngster. The interesting thing is that, old as he is, Raul Castro does realize free enterprise is badly needed in Cuba. Maybe he can outlive the old monster and start implementing some real changes, rather than pussyfooting by legalizing private cab drivers and four-table restaurants.

Cuba got screwed in the cold war, and its people are still suffering for it for sure. Yes, they could have more wealth with a different economic system, but how to do it while keeping a very educated populace and tremendous healthcare is the question. It's not as if spending money were illegal in Cuba. If the US would stop the insane vendetta we have against the country, it would be in far better economic shape. I think an awful lot of Americans would love to vacation in Cuba, be able to easily buy Cuban cigars, etc. Hell, maybe they'd get a baseball team - Canada has them in our league. It would also help them if they were able to buy food from the US on credit like most of the world can - yes, we're screwing over our own farmers as well as the Cuban people by having these crazy restrictions against trade.

Sure, changes will be made in the coming decades, but it's not as if Cuba is the only country that needs to change to make things better. I would like to think the world leaders would be adult enough to work together for the benefit of the people of many nations despite what forms of government those nations have. The US has to realize that if the only deals we make with other countries involve screwing those other countries over, we're ultimately just hurting ourselves. The US is no longer a first world nation, and our treatment of Cuba has played a (albeit small) role in that.

I guess now we're starting to agree. I oppose the embargo, most of US foreign policy is a wasteland.

However, I do dislike communist regimes run as family affairs in systems where freedom of expression is not even remotely possible. To tell you the truth, I don't think democracy as practiced in the USA is a key element for a well-run government, but freedom of expression is definitely needed. I'm also opposed to concentration of power in a central government, and communism concentrates power too much. I'm too familiar with human nature, and I'd rather see decentralized power - and this is something I never see in communist (ie Cuba, North Korea) or communist-lite regimes (Venezuela, Nicaragua).

but isn't it a matter of scale? Power may seem more decentralized in countries such as the US and Germany simply because of the population and geographic area. Cuba is smaller in both ways the some US states. Still, we have mayors, governors, and senators who have had families in positions of power for generations. However power is spent, it should be the people of the country deciding who gets that power. At least in places like Nicaragua and Cuba people can have genuine feelings of being part of the same community as their leaders. When that is stripped away and the people in power seem distant, we get the situation in the US right now: people feel distant from government and have no real understanding of the corporate money that runs the show. Whether or not I like communism (I can't really say, since I think each instance of it I've heard of is dependent on the situation in that country, so making an abstract judgement is hard), I would like to have political leaders who have something invested in their political practice as it relates to the communities they come from and live in. While many may not like the regimes in power in Venezuela and Nicaragua, at least they were elected by popular vote (something still denied to us in the US).

To get back to Honduras: the real crime is not that right-wingers are in power, but that they seized that power from a leader elected by the people of that country. No matter what type of government a population chooses to have, I think that all governments should work together and respect each other so long as whatever government is in power in another country is supported by its populace.

Honduras is holding an election in November 2009. This election is timed as per the Constitution. Candidates went through a primary process, which resulted in a leftist candidate not to the liking of Zelaya's closest advisors. At that point, being disatisfied with their party's candidate, they started pushing for a Constitutional convention, which eventually led to Zelaya's untimely dismisal.

The Honduran Congress, whether you like it or not, was also elected - and they voted to keep Zelaya out of power. The emphasis on pushing for Zelaya over anything else tells me you guys seem to be in favour of an Imperial Presidency - meaning a presidency with absolute power, able to ignore the Congress (something Zelaya was doing quite a bit).

Seeing what I've seen, the abuses of power by Presidents from Bush on the right to Chavez on the left, it seems to me American Presidential democracy is badly designed, and should be tossed away. I'd rather have a hereditary monarchy with a Parliament.

violence is necessary to overthrow corporate tyrannies.

How can a non-democracy complain about a non-democratic coup is beyond me.

Capitalism and democracy, despite what some conservative whack-jobs would tell you, have nothing to do with each other.

As far as I know, Cuba isn't a democracy. I believe it's called a Gerontocracy.

Cuba is permitted to be on the council that Honduras was ejected from. Ergo, by the UNHRC Cuba is a democracy. Further, being a native born Cuban who visits occasionally, the island offers more actual grass roots democracy than is found in most of the industrialized world. But I imagine your opinion trumps our experiences.

Also somebody better tell that to HRW. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.html


Also Saudi Arabia is on that council, is Saudi Arabia a democracy?

In short

Bullshit.

A nation doesn't have to be a democracy to be in the UNHRC. Ergo, your argument is flawed. Further, Cuba lacks a democracy because Cubans who don't happen to be communists aren't allowed to express their ideas in an uncontrolled free media, nor are they able to form groups and associations to support candidates who want to dispose of Castroite communism. Sorry kid, but my experience and knowledge trump yours any time of the day.

Fortunately, and hopefully very soon, the ancient ones who have done so much to hurt Cuba and its people, will die, and a new generation of leaders will emerge, at which time I'm sure I'll see the same thing happen as I saw in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, cheering crowds as the statues of Marx, Engels and Lenin were torn down.

Delegation finds human rights violations across Honduras
Posted on August 27, 2009 by Dennis Sadowski

Hondurans participating in nonviolent demonstrations against the June 28 ouster of Manuel Zelaya as president of the poor Central American country are experiencing human rights violations — including intimidation, beatings and rape — by government security forces, a small delegation of Catholic religious leaders discovered during a recent fact-finding trip.

”We came away with a really deep concern about the level of repression, media control and serious human rights violations that are being perpetrated by official forces,” Marie Dennis, co-president of Pax Christi International, told Catholic News Service Aug. 26, a day after the four-member delegation of which she was a part returned to the U.S. following an eight-day visit.

“We heard a lot of stories about teachers and young people and people in all walks of life who have been caught in this backlash,” Dennis said.

Another delegation member, Jean Stokan, director of the Institute Justice Team of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, compared the current situation in Honduras to the one that existed during the height of El Salvador’s civil war in the 1980s.

“People are afraid. There are horrific human rights abuses. None of this is getting reported because the reporters are getting beaten up,” Stokan told CNS.

More:
http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/delegation-finds-human-rights-violations-across-honduras/

<snip>

"The U.S. attended its first formal meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council as a member Monday, saying it will try to promote dialogue at a body it once avoided and heavily criticized.

The U.S. was elected in June to the 47-nation council, which was criticized by the Bush administration for primarily denouncing Israel while ignoring abuses elsewhere. Washington left its observer seat on the council vacant during the last six months of President George W. Bush's second term.

"We will strive for discussions that are thoughtful, focused and open to all viewpoints and perspectives," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Esther Brimmer told the council.

The decision in May to seek a seat on the Geneva-based body after three years of staying on the sidelines was a major shift in U.S. policy in line with President Barack Obama's stated aim to closer cooperate with the United Nations."

more

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

are not facts. You have many opinions but remain short on pertinent facts. Honduras was expelled because it is an illegal regime. Fact.
Whether you like the originators of the protest, or see them as non-democratic, has very little to do with the fact that the current Honduran golpista regime under Michelotti is considered in violation of democratic principles and cannot represent its citizens at an int'l. forum. Good work on the part of Mexico, etal.

yet they are on the council. Don't even get me started on "Cuban democracy".


P.S Saudi Arabia is on the council too, are they not in violation of democratic principles?

Honduras: Human Rights Violations
Wednesday, 16 September 2009, 4:34 pm
Press Release: Asian Human Rights Commission

September 15, 2009

ALRC-STM-004-2009
A joint statement by the Asian Legal Resource Centre and other International NGOs
Honduras: NGOs Call For Establishment Of International Group Of Experts To Monitor Human Rights Violations
UN Human Rights Council Member-States
September 14, 2009

The undersigned human rights organizations have the pleasure of writing to request that, in the upcoming session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which will take place between September 14th and October 2nd, UN Human Rights Council Member-States will both discuss the situation of serious and widespread human rights violations occurring in Honduras, and promote the establishment of a Group of Experts to monitor them in order to prevent the occurrence of future harms to fundamental rights in this country.

On June 28th, 2009, a coup d'état occurred in the Republic of Honduras, warranting severe condemnation from the international community. In this regard, the General Assembly of the United Nations, in its resolution 63/301 of last June 30th, expressed great concern for “the breakdown in the constitutional and democratic order that has led to the endangerment of security, democracy and the rule of law” in Honduras. On the following July 5th, the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) decided to suspend the right of the Republic of Honduras to participate in the OAS as a result of the coup d'état that overthrew president José Manuel Zelaya (See General Assembly of the OAS, “Suspension of Honduras’ Right to Participate in the Organization of American States", AG/RES. 2 (XXXVII-E/09)).

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) visited Honduras between the 17th and 21st of August, 2009. In its preliminary report, the IACHR corroborated the serious effects of the coup d'état on the effective protection of human rights in the country. In this regard, the IACHR highlighted that from the time of the break in democratic order, violations had been committed against each of the rights to life, to personal integrity, to personal liberty, and to freedom of expression in the Republic of Honduras (See IACHR, Observations Prior to the Visit to Honduras, August 21, 2009).

For the undersigned organizations, it is clear that the United Nations Human Rights Council cannot remain inactive in the face of the grave human rights violations that are taking place in Honduras. For this reason, it is imperative that, during its twelfth session, the Council adopts a resolution that firmly condemns the human rights violations resulted from the institutional rupture in Honduras and establishes a Group of Experts - integrated with several thematic special procedures – in order to conduct a fact-finding mission to Honduras to document the human rights violations that have taken place there, as well as to prevent any future harms to fundamental rights. Specifically, the resolution should establish that the visit of the special procedures that would compose the Group of Experts will result in a report containing recommendations to be considered by the Council and that the Group of Experts will articulate and complement their intervention with the work that the IACHR is currently developing on the protection of human rights in Honduras.

History has shown that interruptions in constitutional order allow for systematic threats to human rights. In this regard, the States should actively involve themselves in all of the international spaces available to put an end to the situation currently affecting Honduras. For this reason, the undersigned organizations hope that the UN Human Rights Council Member-States will work actively in the upcoming session to achieve the effective protection of human rights in Honduras.
Yours Sincerely,

African Democracy Forum - Kenya
Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC)
Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) - Argentina
Conectas Human Rights - Brazil
Democracy Coalition Project (DCP)
Fundar, Center for Analysis and Research - Mexico
Humanas - Chile
Human Rights Center ProDH - Mexico
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
IDHEAS, Strategic Litigation in Human Rights - Mexico
Instituto de Desenvolvimento e Direitos Humanos - Brazil
Interdisciplinary Studies Center for Development (CIEDUR) - Uruguay
Justiça Global - Brazil
Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights - Mexico
National Coordinator for Human Rights (CNDDHH) - Peru
Observatory of Human Rights Public Policies in Mercosur - Uruguay
West Africa Human Rights Defenders Network (WAHRDN)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0909/S00202.htm

IMF: stop funding Honduras
By giving millions of dollars to Honduras, the IMF is supporting an illegitimate coup government the world doesn't recognise.

Mark Weisbrot
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 September 2009 19.00 BST

The IMF is undergoing an unprecedented expansion of its access to resources, possibly reaching a trillion dollars. This week the EU committed $175bn, $67bn more than even the $108bn that Washington agreed to fork over after a tense stand-off between the US Congress and the Obama administration earlier this summer.

The Fund and its advocates argue that the IMF has changed. The IMF is "back in a new guise", says the Economist. This time, we are told, it's really going to act as a multilateral organisation that looks out for the countries and people of the world, and not just for Washington, Wall Street or European banks.

But it's looking more and more like the same old IMF on steroids. Last week the IMF disbursed $150m to the de facto government of Honduras, and it plans to disburse another $13.8m on 9 September. The de facto government has no legitimacy in the world. It took power on 28 June in a military coup, in which the elected President Manuel Zelaya was taken from his home at gunpoint and flown out of the country.

The Organisation of American States suspended Honduras until democracy is restored, and the UN also called for the "immediate and unconditional return" of the elected president.

No country in the world recognises the coup government of Honduras. From the western hemisphere and the EU, only the US retains an ambassador there. The World Bank paused lending to Honduras two days after the coup, and the Inter-American Development Bank did the same the next day. More recently the Central American Bank of Economic Integration suspended credit to Honduras. The EU has suspended over $90m in aid as well, and is considering further sanctions.

But the IMF has gone ahead and dumped a large amount of money on Honduras – the equivalent would be more than $160bn in the US – as though everything is OK there.

This is in keeping with US policy, which is not surprising since the US has been – since the IMF's creation in 1944 – the Fund's principal overseer. Washington made a symbolic gesture earlier this year by cutting off about $18.5m to Honduras, and the state department announced on Thursday that it is terminating other assistance.

But more than two months after the Honduran military overthrew the elected president of Honduras, the US government has yet to determine that a military coup has actually occurred. This is because such a determination would require, under the US Foreign Appropriations Act, a complete cutoff of aid.

One of the largest sources of US aid is the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a government entity whose board is chaired by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/03/imf-honduras-aid-zelaya