Powered by RedCircle
Summary
This year, new legislation about Honduras was presented in the US Congress. This episode provides a brief overview of the legislative initiatives related to human rights and corruption in Honduras and shares responses from Honduran social movement leaders and the government about such efforts.
To read the bills and to find out if your representatives have signed on (or not), go to: ‘Get Involved’ at solidaritycollective.org
Follow us on Instagram @HondurasNow
Transcript
Karen Spring:
In past episodes, I’ve talked about legislative bills that have been presented in the US Congress and Senate that relate to Honduras and human rights issues. Today I’m going to delve a bit into those bills and also share some of the responses and reactions from Hondurans here in the country about that legislation.
Welcome to the Honduras Now podcast. This podcast shares human rights stories from Honduras and connects them with global issues and North American policy. I’m your host, Karen Spring, a human rights activist and researcher, and I’ve lived in Honduras for over a decade. Thank you so much for listening.
To start, it’s probably best to give you an overview. In reality, there are two bills. The first one is the Honduras Human Rights and Anti-Corruption Act, which was presented in the US Congress and in the US Senate for the first time this year. The Berta Cáceres Human Rights in Honduras Act is the second bill, which has been presented several times, the first time in 2016.
Since the Honduras Human Rights and Anti-Corruption Act is new, I’m going to explain it first. This bill has several key provisions. Without getting into too much detail, because the bill is approximately 25 pages long, here are a few key points:
It asks for, first, and probably what caused the most commotion in Honduras, when it was presented in February of this year, is that it asks for sanctions against Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández for his ties to drug trafficking.
Secondly, it raises concerns about corruption in Honduras and proposes some sort of new anti-corruption body to be negotiated by the United Nations. In this provision, it also asked to strengthen the prosecuting and investigative arm of this anti-corruption body that is called UFERCO, or the Special Prosecutor’s Unit Against Corruption. Then the bill proposes $2 million for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights. This is a relatively new institution in Honduras which reports on and follows up on human rights issues all over the country. I frequently see them when I’m doing community visits.
Then the bill turns to US support and financing to the Honduran government. It outlines several abuses committed by state security forces and the level of impunity in which these abuses have occurred. The Honduras Human Rights and Anti-Corruption Act proposes to prohibit US munitions sales to the Honduran police and military and then lists what these are. Then it proposes the suspension of US funds for Honduran state security forces, and secondly, the suspension of US financial support to multilateral development banks for state security forces. These are what this particular Senate and Congressional bill lay out.
And it says that all of these provisions should be implemented until a series of criteria are met. The criteria include advancements in very specific human rights cases like the disappearances of the four Afro-Indigenous Garifuna leaders, and murders of over 100 small farmers in the Bajo Aguán region. It also mentioned as a criteria that the Honduran government must withdraw all military from domestic policing, which is considered a violation of international human rights standards.
These changes that are proposed in this bill are important. I think it’s particularly important that the US suspend aid to state security forces while such abuses are being committed. I’m sure no one wants their tax dollars going to fund assassinations of land defenders and journalists.
Now this bill, because it’s new, and because it was presented by US Senators, got the biggest reaction in Honduras. The media picked it up, and there were strong reactions from the government. I’ll play some of those reactions later in this episode. Before I do that, though, I want to touch on the other bill.
So every time there’s a change of government, proposed legislation has to be reintroduced into Congress. So this year, once again, the Berta Cáceres Act, or HR 1574, was reintroduced into Congress. Despite receiving over 100 Congressional co-sponsors in the past for this bill, we haven’t had success at getting it passed so far. It was first introduced, like I mentioned, in 2016. The Berta Cáceres Act asks for two things, the same two things that the other bill requests. The Act asks for the suspension of security assistance, US assistance to police or military in Honduras, which includes assistance for equipment and training. And the second, the suspension of loans from multilateral development banks for the police and the military.
The bill then lists a number of human rights cases as well. It says that in order for US assistance for Honduran security forces to be reinstated, the US Secretary of State has to inform the relevant Congressional and Senate committees that legal avenues to bring to trial and obtain a verdict for all those who ordered and carried out. And then it lists the specific human rights cases that it’s referring to. So you’re probably confused thinking these bills are similar, and they are in many ways. The main differences that stand out to me are that the Senate bill, the Honduras Human Rights and Anti-Corruption Act, specifically mentioned sanctions against Juan Orlando Hernández and also pushes the issue of anti-corruption efforts. Those are the two main differences, in my opinion.
Now, if you’re interested in hearing more about these bills, or reading them, which I encourage everyone to do, you can find all of the information on the website SolidarityCollective.org. [Their information on the proposed Honduras Human Rights and Anti-Corruption Act in the Senate is here. Their information on the Berta Cáceres Human Rights in Honduras Act is here.] It’s an organization that has been involved in organizing around these bills in the United States. At these links you can also find what Congressional Representatives and Senators have signed on to these bills, what organizations are supporting them, and how you can get involved and have an important discussion about Honduras with your Congressional Representatives.
Now, shortly after the Senate bill was presented, I interviewed social movement leaders in Honduras and asked them what they thought of the bills in the United States. So I think a good way to start sharing the responses from Honduras is to start with Father Ismael Moreno, or Father Melo, or Padre Melo as everybody knows him in Honduras. Father Melo is a Jesuit priest based in El Progreso. He’s the director of an independent radio station called Radio Progreso and its human rights counterpart, the Team for Reflection, Investigation and Communication, or ERIC. Father Melo has traveled several times to speak with Congressional Representatives in the United States, and is an outspoken voice against the Juan Orlando Hernández regime. I asked Padre Melo, unfortunately in front of a very loud speaker, what he thought of the US bills on March 2 at a commemoration for Berta Casitas.
Padre Melo (interpreted):
I am grateful for these initiatives. And I also especially appreciate those who have been driving it in solidarity with the Honduran people. This is positive. The second feeling is that as long as the people in Honduras do not continuously pressure to get Juan Orlando Hernández out of power as soon as possible, we are hardly going to think that from outside the country others are going to give us the solution to the enormous problem that we have in the country. Therefore, the initiatives in the United States Senate, on top of actions inside the country, are those that together can allow us to advance towards a new scenario. Neither the initiative on its own in the US nor the initiative here in Honduras alone will achieve this goal. The objective is to combine the two, the internal and external initiatives, so that we can effectively create results that break with the impunity in the entire country.
Karen Spring:
Father Melo has talked about what this new scenario would look like. He’s been pretty clear that it means Juan Orlando Hernández being removed from power. Father Melo has been a consistent advocate for unity amongst all sectors of Honduran society in order to find a way to change the current scenario. If you’ve been listening to this podcast, you will know that the United States doesn’t have a good track record in Honduras. Nevertheless, Father Melo cannot deny the fact that the US support for this regime is critical to its ability to stay in power. He says that efforts in both the United States and Honduras will be necessary to topple the whole dictatorship.
But the mistrust of US politicians is well warranted. This means that some find everything that comes from the US government to be suspicious and to deeply mistrust them. It’s a sentiment we hear repeatedly from other social movement leaders like Melissa Cardoza from the National Network of Women Human Rights Defenders.
Melissa Cardoza (interpreted):
I’m Melissa Cardoza, and I’m a feminist and lesbian writer. I’m part of various collectives and also part of the Assembly of Women Activists in Honduras, and the National Network of Women Human Rights Defenders. The truth is that for me, these legislative initiatives don’t take away the lack of trust I have, historically, in relation to United States policies. But we are people with a memory. We know what the United States represents for this country. So whatever initiative that comes from a power, the United States, generates a lot of suspicion for me. I never think it’s something really good. I think, as they say, the United States doesn’t have friends. They have business interests and partners, and US foreign policies are produced to favor those interests.
It’s hypocritical that they have a law that could impact the fact that Juan Orlando Hernández could be taken from power and in some way dealt with by authorities in the US for his relationship with drug trafficking. It’s hypocritical because the US has kept him in power. And just now they discover or uncover these things about Juan Orlando Hernández? The whole world knows. The Honduran people have said it. Berta Cáceres said it. We have said it in so many ways and forms. Also, in speaking tours in the United States and other countries. They have always supported him. But now even people that once supported him, like the former US Chargé d’Affaires [Heide] Fulton, now they are making statements against him. So for me, it appears that it’s a hypocritical policy that seems to have more to do with business interests or geostrategic interests. They will probably remove this president to only put one in that’s worse.
Also, I don’t think US policies are made to benefit the people of Honduras. And what happens is they present a law that could mean that Juan Orlando Hernández leaves power, but myself and the critical feminist collectives who I discuss this with, we know that nothing good comes from the United States for the Honduran people. So that’s what I think.
Karen Spring:
The influence of the United States is able to reproduce itself thanks in part due to control that the country’s wealthy families have over a lot of the public debate. They, through their media spaces that limit and control what can be talked about, the discussions thus become very limited and framed in a way that benefits the most powerful groups in Honduras. Several corruption cases have also revealed how the Honduran government pays journalists to frame issues in a way that benefits the whole regime. You won’t hear discussions about the abuses committed by the regime on most stations, and in most newspapers, Hondurans for years have had their suspicions about JOH’s connection to drug trafficking, something simply cannot be swept under the rug. Similarly, the private media in Honduras cannot ignore when legislation like the ones we’re talking about on today’s episode are presented in the US Congress. And suddenly what was taboo or difficult to talk about enters the public discussion. This can have far-reaching implications for social movements in the country. Victor Fernández, a lawyer with COPIHN, explains in the following clip.
Victor Fernández (interpreted):
My name is Victor Fernández Guzmán. I’m the lawyer for the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras, and the family of Berta Cáceres. I’m a member of the broad movement of dignity and justice. And I’m the director of the recently created human rights legal firm in San Pedro Sula, called Studies for Dignity.
First, I’m going to give an objective opinion of the impact of these decisions and initiatives in the United States on Honduran society. They have a notable impact. The initiatives have been the topic of discussion in the Honduran corporate media, and have introduced topics that here, internally in the country, would never ever be discussed. So let’s say that, objectively, the laws have a positive impact for the people that are fighting for a better Honduras, for the ones that are fighting, for those who are demanding justice. But in this case, whether the initiatives will have a decisive effect, we don’t know, we can’t say. But does it affect the reality of Honduras? It does, and it’s important that it does. I hope it makes people act, it makes organizing and mobilizing converge in relation to the topics discussed in the United States, like corruption, drug trafficking, and violations of human rights, like the murder of Berta Cáceres. This has been the objective impact.
Subjectively, I want to say that for me, it makes me feel powerless. And it makes me feel sad because these topics have value in their own right, in the reality that shapes the dignity of people, the hundreds of thousands of people in this country. And we should not wait for these topics to be dealt with in the United States because it’s from the United States that our terrible reality has taken shape. I mean, the current regime, the manner in which it’s operated institutionally, here historically, has been with the backing of the United States. And it’s a bit contradictory, even despicable. What I mean is it’s a shame that the laws are moving things here simply because they come from the United States. And this is a focus, a critical political lesson. It’s worrying, but good, let’s say for now, that this is what’s happening. I hope that sooner rather than later, we, as the people, we understand, we take on these topics, we have stronger media, and we have the capacity to tackle these problems, to generate mobilization, to make us talk about the necessity of removing the criminal structure that has become the government. It is not necessary for the United States to say this. Here we know they are drug traffickers, we know that the electoral processes are fraudulent. We know that the government is involved in criminal activity. So why wait for these things to be said outside the country in order for us to be aware of it, and to debate in daily television programs and those types of things? This is a topic that causes us to critically reflect about ourselves as a society.
But I’ll return to what I’m originally saying. Objectively, the laws have affected the reality of the country, and also the region. I mean, the laws are a reference point, because you’re talking about the possibility of impacting from the man in the presidency to human rights cases like Berta Cáceres’s murder. And this could have effects in the Central American region, and of course in the country. So it is an important topic that requires a critical assessment.
Karen Spring:
Victor expresses something that I find increasingly common in the country, the extreme frustration that something is so needed, but so unfairly out of reach. I find he really sums up the psychological impact of having important decisions about your country and your future manipulated and unfairly shaped from outside of the country.
Now, of course, when legislation implicates the president, his office is going to respond, cognizant of the allegations against him and the threat these bills indeed pose to his rule. Juan Orlando Hernández has tried to get out ahead of the issue, attempting to frame the discussion. This is Luis Suazo, the Honduran ambassador to the United States. He speaks on a national TV program called Frente a Frente (to watch full episode, go here), just days after the Senate bill was presented.
Luis Suazo (interpreted):
What I’m going to say is that we believe that, yes, we face challenges, and there are many things mentioned in the law that are true, that are challenges that we will have to overcome in the country. Not everything is bad, and the specific things about the president, and in my case I represent Honduras, up there, they’re talking about the entire institutionality of the state. For this reason, I’m not here to defend one person. The relevant topic for me, for example, is that they have mentioned the president, but the president has not even been formally accused. He hasn’t defended himself. Sorry. But in those analyses, and we should do them, if you say you’re completely objective, then you have to look at all sides. So what’s going on there? They are violating the president’s presumption of innocence, because they’re saying he’s guilty. And it says there’s sufficient proof. And we have to punish the president? But the president, sorry to say, the president cannot resign. We are going to go to the Senate. We are going to provide them with information. They are asking the president to do things that correspond to the duties of the judiciary, or correspond to the duties of the public prosecutor’s office. They are asking the president to remove military support for the police. But I don’t know if that’s what Hondurans want.
Karen Spring:
So on that last point, having military in the streets is a violation of international human rights standards. I already mentioned that. But the UN High Commissioner’s Office has also raised concerned about this on several occasions. And worse, the military presence in the streets continues to grow, but violence levels have not gone down.
Like Ambassador Suazo, several government officials have responded to the US Southern District Court’s drug allegations against Juan Orlando Hernández. They tend to claim the following:
Juan Orlando Hernández and the government have not been involved in drug trafficking, and, in fact, they have been really hard on crime and have cracked down on drug trafficking. They also say that the US prosecutors making the allegations are liars. And the accusations against JOH come from convicted drug traffickers that have turned and are testifying on behalf of the prosecutors.
In fact, on top of the government’s public rejection of the accusations and allegations in the US bills, two days after the Senate bill was presented, Juan Orlando Hernández did something unusual. The president and his security and defense cabinet went to the National Congress and gave a long speech. The president warned how dangerous gangs and organized criminal groups have become, and he calls for more strict measures against them. He warned that the United States shouldn’t listen to drug traffickers that are just ratting him out in order to reduce their prison sentences.
This is one Juan Orlando Hernández’s faithful right hand man, Ebal Díaz. Díaz’s current position is the executive secretary of the cabinet. Ebal dares to sell the regime’s lies so blatantly on national television in response to the presentation of the US bill in the Senate.
Ebal Díaz (interpreted):
I’ve told them, I look them in the eyes and ask them, what does it feel like to work with a drug-trafficking government and public officials, drug traffickers like the prosecutors say in the Southern District Court. They have told me on various occasions, neither the White House, the Southern Command, nor the DEA, nor the State Department believe that Honduras is a narco state. They say, we know what the Honduran government has done, we are happy with what you have done.
So here we are confronting a strategy and a political plan based on declarations of drug traffickers and prosecutors that lie and US politicians with ultra-left tendencies that have a deliberate intention to influence Honduras, so that, here, people with their political ideology that are pro-abortion, for example, pro gay marriage, can win the elections here. We have to look at who the two Senators are that are presenting these proposals. There is a manipulation and a political game behind all this.
And I conclude saying, if the US agencies and the government allow this game to occur, US politicians and prosecutors that lie, this game they have with the irresponsible political opposition here in Honduras, and in any Latin American country, the message they are sending is that we should not crack down on drug trafficking. And that whatever politician in Honduras or in whatever country in the region that combats drug trafficking, like Juan Orlando Hernández and the National Party have done, will then suffer consequences. This appears to be a punishment.
Karen Spring:
So that’s largely the government’s response to the bills. But is what Ebal Díaz is saying, is it true about branches of the US government, like the White House and the US Southern Command, saying that they are happy with the Honduran government’s performance? I really don’t know. But the silence of the US State Department, the White House and the Southern Command about these serious allegations against the president is very telling. And it’s really messed up.
Now, before wrapping up, I really want to encourage people to go and read the bills. The Solidarity Collective, like I mentioned, SolidarityCollective.org, has made it really easy for people to do this. Go to their website and find links to the bills [here and here]. They’ve also summarized the main asks.
You can also find out if your US representative has signed and, if not, give them a call or set up a meeting and ask them to sign, or get together with a community group or faith-based group and have a discussion about the bill. Use them as a way to discuss US foreign policy and its implications for your organization, your community, and of course, Honduras. For the Canadians listening to this podcast, we really need to get a move on the Canadian Parliament and insist that similar legislation be introduced in Canada as well. So I’ll post all this information in the show notes at HondurasNow.org.
Recently, I’ve gotten some requests for show topics, specifically about health care in Honduras. So I’m working away on those. I would love to receive more suggestions. Please get in touch. And if you’re interested in a specific human rights topic, group, or issue, definitely let me know. Thank you to all the people that support this podcast, to the donors and, of course, all the people that volunteer their time to do the voiceovers. That’s the episode for today. I’m Karen Spring, and until next time, hasta pronto.