1. Paquetazo"(New fiscal measures) taxes for the poor is a direct consequence of the coup
By Gerson de la Rosa
Following the breakdown of constitutional order, the consolidation of the illegitimate government of Robert Michelletti and the alleged departure of the coupsters and U.S. imperialism after the defeat of the mass peaceful resistance, the expulsion of Zelaya of the country and the arrival of Porfirio Lobo to Government are the most important events of the second half of last year. Indeed, a year marked by a deep global economic crisis product of one of the worst crises in the United States after the collapse of the financial and banking system.
The causes of the financial imbalance
Before the coup, political analysts expressed that Honduras would not experience economic growth, what's more, the rate of its exports would look small because its main buyer, ie the United States, would present an economic slowdown. As we can see, the picture is not presented in a favorable light, even when they had the recognition of all the nations of the world, iof nternational loan agencies and social development programs opened in the Zelaya government.
After the expulsion of Zelaya and the formation of illegitimate government, the financial situation of the country, certainly in precarious conditions due to the global economic crisis was aggravated by the non recognition of coup leader authorities by the States, credit institutions and those with political character such as the OAS and the UN ,Rio Summit, CARICOM, PETROCARIBE, likewise, the suspension of credit programs like the Millennium Challenge Account, disbursement of loans from the World Bank, IMF and the breakdown of political and economic relations formed with Venezuela through the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas ALBA.
The impact of the breakdown and expulsion from Honduras of the above-mentioned bodies, meant that the coup leaders recurred to the international foreign exchange deposits in banks that were part of the economic surplus from previous years.
It is clear that the illegitimate government of Roberto Micheletti squandered state funds. This took place in many ways: the prevailing corruption in the management of state funds, the sameLobo Sosa officials expressed through various media outlets the deep corruption under the management of the illegitimate government, the coup leaders had to collect the painful service.
Moreover, during this period of time, there were substantial economic losses result of political instability reflected in continuous demonstrations, occupation of roads and incessant work stoppages of workers in the National Agrarian Institute and the teaching profession, as well as almost daily curfues and continued mobilization of military troops to ensure the social order fabricated after the coup and in different historical stages and situations that have been characterized by exploitation and social exclusion.
The post-coup scenario
As noted, the new government inherited an unstable government, both politically and economically.Although, over the months, the government of Lobo Sosa has begun to be recognized by the international community, obviously under the weakness of not having direct access to the various credit programs. . However, the above is not enough, the coup plotters caused so much damage that some analysts, of course, economic experts claim that the decline experienced after the rupture of constitutional order has been worse than the losses incurred in the wake of Hurricane Mitch.
Tax reforms
Under the enormous need for funds, the Nationalist government introduced a series of fiscal reforms in the chamber to be approved and implemented starting from its publication in the official gazette.After a long, long day of discussion the new fiscal paquetazo tax was approved.
This measure was taken in the context of a policy of selective prosecution, where gunmen had assassinated political and trade union leaders, including our comrade José Manuel Flores Arguijo. Likewise, the struggle waged by organized peasants in the Unified Peasant Movement of Aguan (MUCA) has determined in some way the implementation of the measures. I say this because the measures were covered with make-up, though they involve a frontal attack on the economy of workers, and some of their conquests, the measures were amended and softened on its original proposal. However, the paquetazo is a measure of the coup to start a recovery of the economy and the bourgeois state, in other words, to shift the costs of the coup to workers and the Honduran people.
Let businessmen pay the crisis
Some months ago, we expressed that the consequences of defeat would be disastrous for the working class and the Honduran people, since the coup would move the loss of their business and government to the impoverished pockets of the workers.
For all these reasons, the Central American Socialist Party (PSOC) calls on the National Resistance Front (FNR), teachers' unions, trade unions and labor unions to initiate wide marches to demand the government not to apply measures introduced in the tax reforms. Businessmen are directly responsible for the political and economic crisis for having initiated the coup, it is they who should pay more taxes.
Similarly, we propose the nationalization of the economy only through state control and workers of the economy will achieve a broad social development. This day of mobilization should be viewed as central point of creating sources of employment, the minimum wage increase and the freezing of all products of basic need.
2. European Union aims to munipalize Garifuna communities in Honduras
During recent years, international financial organizations have been promoting the destruction of communal property of indigenous peoples of the continent, under the pretext of promoting municipalization and their alleged development course.
In the case of Honduras, the World Bank financed the preparation of a law called at its inception "Law for the Eradication of Poverty through the Property Tax Adjustment" and later known as the "Law of Property."
Such Law in its Chapter III, focusing on indigenous and black peoples of Honduras, puts at risk the community property, allowing the individualization of title and therefore the division of the territories of indigenous peoples in the country.
The OFRANEH introduced before the Supreme Court in December 2008 a constitutional complaint related to Property Lawand its Chapter III (articles relating to indigenous peoples), supported among others by a legal opinion of the ILO, which states that the Property Law violates the Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization.
Garifuna communities, especially from the Bay of Tela, from the issuance of the Municipalities Law (1992) have undergone a process of intervention of municipalities through the extension of the urban area of the municipality, giving a series of abuses of power and expropriations in which politicians are involved and the tourism industry.
The Garifuna people have so far resisted violence and persecution unleashed by the feudal lords to dilute the community titles, and before the exhaustion of internal resources, communities accompanied by our organization, we have been obliged to use the Inter-American system of justice. To date the communities of Triunfo de la Cruz and San Juan Tela have injunctions issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).
In recent years there is a new actor in the process of dispossession of the Garifuna people funded by the European Union, with the intention of expropiating (registering them oficially as a legitimate real estate property) communities, a situation which we consider one more link in the municipalization of Garifuna territories.
On April 25 in the Garifuna community of Bajamar (Cortes) an alleged meeting of induction to the process of land of that community ,took place sponsored by PATH and funded by the European Union.
Earlier, last year PROCORREDOR , European Union project, called a meeting in August in the community of Sambo Creek, where it stated as one of its objectives the project, the land registry of the Garifuna communities, this component being considered part of its strategy of land use.
According to the version of PROCORREDOR its mission is to ensure the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in the Honduran Atlantic, which suffers from accelerated erosion of biodiversity, as well as an apparent destruction of watersheds, but so far have not taken the appropriate measures to solve the problem.
The story of the decade of the 90s, shows how most indigenous territories in the isthmus, fell within the scope of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, with its designation of protected areas, preventing the full integral entitlement of our territories.
Since 2000 with the failed Plan Puebla Panama - renamed Mesoamerica Project - begins to make a destruction of more than 400 river basins in Central America in order to build hydroelectric dams, putting in question the alleged vision of the Biological Corridor conservation, in no time the institution has come out against the massive ecological destruction posed by the Mesoamerica Project.
Despite the rejection demonstrated by the vast majority of indigenous peoples affected by the Mesoamerica Project, dam construction in protected areas continues without any objection from the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and many environmental organizations who prefer to consolidate their financial benefits rather than entering in conflict with the Project.
In the case of land registry in Garifuna communities it allows to individualize community ownership, using some "Garifuna chiefs" appointed by the municipalities and turned into spokesmen for the interests of tourism entrepreneurs, which in the end will be the beneficiaries of thevindividualization strategy.
As for PROCORREDOR, which since the beginning of its administration was emphatic about them only working with municipalities, to date no concrete results are known about the conservation of watershed and forest protection, much less expressed on 14 proposals to build dams in the Department of Atlantida.
The European Union and the human rights and indigenous people's rights violation through their operations
In several documents and policies of the European Union, the rights of indigenous peoples and their collective rights to lands and territories are highlighted.
The EU can not deny knowledge of the issue of indigenous land in Honduras in general, or of the same problems as the Garifuna people in particular. In section 2.2 of its Country Strategy for Honduras for 2007 to 2013, the EU recognizes that "indigenous communities - such as the Garifuna community - have had difficulties in claiming their rights to land ownership." (1)
The Framework Cooperation Agreement of 1993 between the European Community and its Member States on the one hand, and Honduras and several Central American countries, on the other hand, makes several references to indigenous peoples. It details both sides will "systematically consider the situation of indigenous peoples and other Central American ethnic groups at all levels of development cooperation."
The Resolution of the European Union Meeting No. 2141 of the Council on November 30, 1998 on 'Indigenous peoples and development cooperation of the European Community and Member States' was the first public EU document specifically on indigenous Peoples and cooperation. It recognized to some extent the rights of various concepts of development, participation, among others, including "the right to oppose projects, particularly within their traditional areas."
The report on the 'progress of working with indigenous peoples' June 2002, and the Council's conclusions on this regard during the same year indicate the follow-up to Resolution of 1998 and the integration of policy on indigenous peoples in some documents,guidelines , and policies of EU cooperation. However, they do not address whether the discussion on indigenous rights, much less collective and territorial rights, but further insights on these last ones can be found already integrated in some articles on other policies of cooperation.
Article 3.2.2 of the guidelines of the EU in terms of land policy recognizes that "the majority of indigenous peoples have different systems of land tenure based on collective rights to lands and territories." (2) (2) Moreover, it also notes that "often the effective recognition of these rights is incomplete, leading to social and political marginalization, the creation of misery , and land conflicts. Therefore, mechanisms to ensure the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands are important for their cultural survival, to promote equity and to protect their immediate environment. " (3)
Article 3.2.3 states that the obstacles that may be faced by indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups when protecting their rights and making them valid, "the need for innovative legal frameworks and institutions" may arise to ensure that we take into account their rights. (4)
And in the same document of guidelines on land policy, the table on Fundamental Issues and Trends identifies the collective rights of indigenous peoples from four points of action necessary in Latin America as follows: "Ways sought to formalize claims of Land of the informal sector, minority and indigenous peoples. Support recognition of collective rights of property. " (5)
The article 5.7.13 on the same guidelines points out that "measures to ensure the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples must be based on respect for their laws and tenure regimes themselves." (6)
A final reflection paper on land policy of the EU, including a list of "key principles for the involvement of donor " and the second part of the document, is that "donor support for land reform should never result in... the dispossession or eviction of ethnic minorities and indigenous tribal peoples of the territory traditionally occupied. " (7, bold from original document)
Moreover, Article 103 of the European Development Council, the new EU policy on development since 2005, says: "The key principle for safeguarding the rights of indigenous peoples in development cooperation is to ensure their full participation and free and informed consent of the communities concerned. " (8)
Article 101 of the European Consensus on Development identifies indigenous peoples as a central theme in development for the EU. According to the information in the same page of the EU, "The main themes are sitting in various conventions, declarations and treaties on development that are binding for EU countries and for most of the beneficiary countries." (9) According to the same multilateral organization, "the EU can not support actions which can result in that a beneficiary country violates its obligations under those agreements." (10)
En el caso de Honduras, en cuanto a pueblos indígenas, esas obligaciones incluyen el cumplimiento del Convenio 169 de la OIT, la CERD, y también las medidas cautelares y resoluciones emitidas por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos específicamente para algunas comunidades Garifunas. In the case of Honduras, regarding indigenous peoples, these obligations include compliance with ILO Convention 169, the CERD, as well as restraining orders and resolutions issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights specifically for some Garifuna communities.
______________
Traducciones no oficiales desde el inglés: Unofficial translations from English:
) Unofficial translation. Versión oficial en inglés de la última frase de la sección 2.2: "Despite recent progress, indigenous communities - such as the Garifuna community - have experienced difficulties in claiming their land property rights." Official version in English of the last sentence of Section 2.2: "Despite Recent progress, Indigenous communities - Such as the Garifuna community - have Claiming Their Experienced Difficulties in land property rights." (European Union, Country Strategy Paper for Honduras) (European Union, Country Strategy Paper for Honduras)
(2) Traducción no oficial. (2) Unofficial translation. Versión oficial en inglés: "Most indigenous groups have culturally distinctive land tenure regimes based on collective rights to lands and territories." Official version in English: "Have Most Culturally Distinctive groups Indigenous Land Tenure Regimes based on collective rights to lands and territories." (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004) (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004)
(3) Traducción no oficial. (3) Unofficial translation. Versión oficial en inglés: "effective recognition of these rights is often incomplete, leading to social and political marginalisation, immiseration and land conflicts. Mechanisms for securing indigenous peoples' rights to their lands are thus important for their cultural survival and for promoting equity and protecting their immediate environment." Official version in English: "effective Recognition of These rights is incomplete Often, Leading to Social and Political marginalisation, immiseration and Land Conflicts. Mechanisms for Securing Indigenous Peoples' rights to Malthus Their lands are important for survival and for cultural Their equity Promoting and Protecting Their immediate environment. " (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004) (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004)
(4) Traducción no oficial. (4) Unofficial translation. Versión oficial en inglés del artículo completo 3.2.3: "Access to fair legal process represents a legitimate expectation associated with citizenship, yet in many countries people are unable to gain protection of their rights and assets under the law. Democratic states need to guarantee the rights and assets of every citizen, even the poorest. This may imply the need for innovative legal frameworks and institutions to ensure the law is accessible to poor farmers, indigenous people and vulnerable groups, and that their rights are fairly taken into account." Official English version of the complete article 3.2.3: "Access to fair legal process Represents a Legitimate Expectation Associated with citizenship, yet people in many country clubs are Unable to gain protection of Their rights and assets under the law. Democratic states to guarantee the Need rights and assets of Every citizen, Even the Poorest. This May Imply the Need for Innovative Institutions and legal frameworks to Ensure the law is accessible to poor Farmers, Indigenous people and vulnerable groups, and Fairly That Their rights are Taken Into Account. " (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004) (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004)
(5) Traducción no oficial. (5) Unofficial translation. Versión oficial del cuarto punto de acción necesaria ("Action Needed") en la categoría de América Latina del cuadro Temas y Tendencias Fundamentales ("Major Issues and Trends"): "Means sought to formalise land claims of informal sector, minority groups and indigenous peoples. Support recognition of collective ownership rights." Official version of the fourth necessary action ("Action Needed") in the category of Latin America Fundamental Issues and Trends table ("Major Issues and Trends"): "Means Sought to FormaliS land claims of informal sector, minority groups and Indigenous peoples. Support Recognition of collective ownership rights. " (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004) (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004)
(6) Traducción no oficial. (6) Unofficial translation. Versión oficial en inglés: "Measures to secure the rights of minority groups and indigenous peoples must be based on the respect of their own laws and tenure regimes" (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004) Official version in English: "Measures to secure the rights of minority groups and indigenous peoples must be based on the Respect of Their Own Laws and tenure regime" (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004)
(7) Traducción no oficial. (7) Unofficial translation. Versión oficial en inglés del punto en el listado "Key principles for donors' engagement" (negrito del documento original): "Donor support for land reform should in no case result in further deprivation for women and poor people from access to and control over land, nor in the dispossession or eviction of ethnic minorities or tribal and indigenous peoples from the territory they traditionally occupy." Official English version of item in the list "Key Principles for Donors' engagement" (bold in the original document): "Donor support for Land Reform in no case should result in weitere deprivation for women and poor people from access to and control over land , north in the dispossession or Eviction of Ethnic Minorities and indigenous peoples or tribal from They Traditionally Occupy the Territory. " (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004) (European Union, Land Policy Guidelines, November 2004)
(8) Traducción no oficial. (8) Unofficial translation. Versión oficial en inglés: "The key principle for safeguarding indigenous peoples rights in development cooperation is to ensure their full participation and the free and prior informed consent of the communities concerned." Official version in English: "The key Principles for Safeguarding Indigenous Peoples Rights in Development Cooperation is to Ensure Their full participation and the free and prior informed consent of the Communities concerned." (The European Consensus on Development, 2005) (The European Consensus on Development, 2005)
(9) Traducción no oficial. (9) Unofficial translation. Versión oficial en inglés de comentarios sobre los ejes temáticos en las políticas del desarrollo: "Cross-cutting issues are laid down in a number of international conventions, declarations and treaties on development that are binding on EU countries and most beneficiary countries." Official English version of comments on the themes in the politics of development: "Cross-cutting issues are laid down in a number of international conventions, declarations and treaties on Development That are binding on EU country clubs and most beneficiary countries." ( http://ec.europa.eu/development/policies/crosscutting_en.cfm ) ( http://ec.europa.eu/development/policies/crosscutting_en.cfm )
(10) Traducción no oficial. (10) Unofficial translation. Versión oficial en inglés de comentarios sobre los ejes temáticos en las políticas del desarrollo: "the EU cannot support action that may result in a beneficiary country infringing its obligations under these agreements." Official English version of comments on the themes in the politics of development: "the EU can not support action That May result in a Beneficiary Country infringing These ITS Obligations under agreements." ( http://ec.europa.eu/development/policies/crosscutting_en.cfm ) ( http://ec.europa.eu/development/policies/crosscutting_en.cfm )
Enlaces a los documentos de la UE utilizados: Links to EU documents used:
- Estrategia de País para Honduras para el 2007-2013 (inglés): http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/honduras/csp/07_13_en.pdf Country Strategy for Honduras for 2007-2013 (English): http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/honduras/csp/07_13_en.pdf
- Acuerdo marco de cooperación UE-Centroamérica (1993, español): http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/ca/pol/pdca_12_03_es.pdf Framework Cooperation Agreement EU-Central America (1993, Spanish): http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/ca/pol/pdca_12_03_es.pdf
- Resolución del Consejo sobre 'Los pueblos indígenas y la cooperación al desarrollo de la Comunidad Europea y de los Estados miembros' (noviembre 1998, español): http://www.latautonomy.org/resolucion_Pueblos.PDF Council Resolution on 'Indigenous peoples and development cooperation of the European Community and Member States' (November 1998, Spanish): http://www.latautonomy.org/resolucion_Pueblos.PDF
- Progreso del trabajo con los pueblos indígenas, Informe de la Comisión al Consejo (noviembre 2002, español): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=es&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2002&nu_doc=291 Progress of working with indigenous peoples, Report of the Commission to the Council (November 2002, Spanish): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=es&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc = 2002 & nu_doc = 291
- Pueblos Indígenas - Conclusiones del Consejo, doc. Indigenous Peoples - Council Conclusions, doc. 13466/02, en la Sesión no. 13466/02, in Session no. 2463 del Consejo (2002, español): http://www.almaciga.org/imagenes/adjuntos_adjunto_87.pdf Council 2463 (2002, Spanish): http://www.almaciga.org/imagenes/adjuntos_adjunto_87.pdf
- Directrices de la Política de Tierras (noviembre 2004, inglés): http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/EU_Land_Guidelines_Final_12_2004_en.pdf Guidelines for Land Policy (November 2004, English): http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/EU_Land_Guidelines_Final_12_2004_en.pdf
- Consenso Europea sobre Desarrollo (2005, inglés): http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/Consensus_on_Development_November_2005_en.pdf European Consensus on Development (2005, English): http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/Consensus_on_Development_November_2005_en.pdf
- Comentarios de introducción sobre ejes temáticos en políticas de desarrollo (inglés): http://ec.europa.eu/development/policies/crosscutting_en.cfm Introductory Remarks themes in development policy (English): http://ec.europa.eu/development/policies/crosscutting_en.cfm
La Ceiba, April 30, 2010
- Miriam Miranda
OFRANEH Honduran Black Fraternal Organization, OFRANEH
http://www.alainet.org/active/37741&lang=es
No comments:
Post a Comment