Honduras: National Front of Resistance against the Coup d'État, "Communiqué No. 28"

13 October, 2009 — MRZine – Monthly Review

The National Front of Resistance against the Coup d’État, in view of the latest developments at the table of dialogue established at the behest of the Organization of American States (OAS) announces that:

  • We withdrew our compañero Juan Barahona from the so-called Guaymuras dialogue. Comrade Barahona served as representative of the National Front of Resistance against the Coup d’État in President Zelaya’s delegation in that dialogue.

The coup regime’s delegation, in a typical act of intransigence to obstruct the progress of negotiation, was attempting to paralyze the dialogue by refusing to allow our representative to sign the San José Accord while attaching a reservation to Point No. 3 of the accord concerning the renunciation of the establishment of a National Constitutional Assembly, since in that reservation we wished to state that our front does not and will not renounce our struggle for this demand which is the demand of the Honduran people. Aware that this was a ploy to use any pretext to derail the dialogue, given that signing with reservations was suggested by the coup leaders themselves at a previous meeting, we decided not to be manipulated by it, so we took this decision, leaving President Zelaya free to substitute for him another representative that he may trust. Thus Attorney Rodil Rivera Rodil was delegated to be a member of President Zelaya’s commission in substitution for our representative.

  • This means that the National Front of Resistance against the Coup d’État exits the Guaymuras dialogue and that we will continue to fight in the street for the demands that we have raised since 28 June: the return to the constitutional order; the restoration of President Zelaya to his office; and the convening of a Constitutional Assembly.
  • We make clear that we will respect the decision of our president if he decides to sign the San José Accord, even with all its conditions, and we declare that we are in full agreement with him regarding the demand that the coup leaders sign the accord which has them abandon power and the Presidency of the Republic be returned to him.
  • We warn the coup leaders that, if an accord returning the presidency to its legitimate holder is not signed before 15 October, the Resistance will initiate actions nationwide to disavow the electoral farce that they hope to stage on 29 November.
  • We call upon the popular sectors to redouble efforts to defeat the corporate-military dictatorship, demanding the end to repression, the repeal of the decrees that abridge the constitutional guarantees, freedom for political prisoners, and the re-opening of Radio Globo, Canal 36, and other independent media, and the end to censorship against them and other journalists.

108 Days of Struggle, and No One Is Surrendering Here
Tegucigalpa, Central District Municipality, 13 October 2009 The original communiqué in Spanish was published by HablaHonduras among other sites on 13 October 2009. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.

A NATO for the Middle East? Israel and Frontline Arab States Join Hands By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

14 October, 2009 — Global Research

After the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq the U.S. and British governments gave up their excuses about bringing democracy to the people of the Middle East and started slowly talking about their strategic interests in the region. Fighting terrorism and bringing democracy were mere pretexts for military assaults. The Anglo-American game plan exposed itself in the summer of 2006 after the Israeli aerial seige of Lebanon. France and Germany were also implicated in the Anglo-American designs and the whole venture began to appear as a combined project, with NATO representing all four powers.

By the summer months of 2007, William M. Arkin, a columnist on security issues for The Washington Post, stated that the U.S. government had started the process of creating a NATO-like military alliance in the Middle East against Iran and Syria. [1] The basis for Arkin’s claims were the major, and very public, steps taken by the Bush Jr. Administration to demonize Iran and Syria in 2007 and to classify or divide the Middle East into two different camps, “moderates” and “radicals.” [2] According to Arkin:

The new military alliance even has a temporary name: GCC+2. Yesterday [July 31, 2007], Rice and Gates met [for security and policy meetings regarding the Middle East] with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council of six nations: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — plus Egypt and Jordan. [3]

Although Tel Aviv was (deliberately) not mentioned due to the sensitivities of the Arab public, Israel is a partner within the framework of such an alliance. In July 2009, the international reports of the voyage of Israeli Dolphin submarines, which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, through the Suez Canal as a veiled threat to Iran and as part of Israeli preparations for a war against Tehran illustrate the level of cooperation between these states and Israel. [4]

Continue reading