Alternative truth, official truth, or honest disagreement?
by RAJ, http://hondurasculturepolitics.blogspot.com/2010/04/alternative-truth-official-truth-or.html
Composed of former Guatemalan vice president Eduardo Stein; Michael Kergin, a Canadian diplomat; María Amadilia, former Peruvian minister of justice; and Honduran members Julieta Castellanos and Jorge Omar Casco, assisted by Sergio Membreño as technical secretary, the Commission will begin its work on May 4.
As Mejía points out, conservative forces in Honduras-- notably the Unión Cívica Democrática (UCD)-- are opposed to including Julieta Castellanos. In addition, Mejía points out, "human rights groups criticised the inclusion of Casco, whom they link with the most radical fringe of the political right". Meanwhile, the Human Rights Platform notes that the Truth Commission has been established without following international norms.
The selection of the international members of the commission appears to have been constrained by the need to avoid participants from countries that have been critical of the coup. Since few governments in the world refrained from expressing outrage about the de facto regime, and many governments have not yet recognized the Lobo Sosa administration, the range of candidates was restricted from the outset. While Mejía cites Minister of Foreign Relations Mario Canahuati as saying the selection was made from a group of 15 competitive candidates, she quotes Reina Rivera of the Human Rights Platform as saying that
We believe that the selection of the international members was made more on the basis of their nationalities than their competence and abilities. The representatives from Canada and Peru are not well looked upon in some sectors, which is why some reject the Commission, while others view it with reservations.Among those skeptical others: pro-coup businessman and ANDI president Adolfo Facussé, who reportedly said
this Truth Commission is a demand of the international community and we already know what its findings will be.... [These] will be geared to what the world wants to hear, and not to what really happened in Honduras. I don't have very high expectations regarding this question. It won't contribution to reconciliation; on the contrary, it will create greater division.Finally, something on which both sides can agree! But surely even if it doesn't heal the wounds, finding out the truth will help? well, not so fast:
As we previously pointed out, the fact that the commission will seal records for ten years suggests the search for truth in Honduras is premature, if the committee thinks the country cannot handle hearing what it expects to discover. The report that Stein suggests will be complete in eight months is hard to imagine, if it has to avoid sensitive topics.
On the positive side, Mejía reports plans for an "Alternative Truth Commission", reportedly with the backing of Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, to "monitor the process and the conduct of those who make up the Truth Commission".
So, while we may share the skepticism of the left, right, and pro-business sectors in Honduras about the official Truth Commission, there is a chance that opposition to the proposed whitewash will keep a focus on the actual events of the coup and its aftermath and give human rights groups a chance to call attention to ongoing repression.
"We'll know the truth in 10 years"
by RNS
"A truth commission also aims to affect the way the public understands its national history and the conflict or violence of recent years. It is thus important that the conclusions of the report are made widely available throughout the country." -- Rule of law tools for Post-Conflict States -- Truth Commissions, United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, page 31.I know that the truth commission was forced on Honduras, and that no one in power there wants it, but we are left just scratching our head at the resultant truth commission that Honduras has come up with. Who does it serve, and to what purpose?
"We'll know the truth in ten years" was the headline in La Tribuna this morning. My jaw dropped; I did a double take, and then I laughed. I've read the UN manual on truth commissions; they literally wrote the book on them. Apparently no one at the State Department, which pushed for the truth commission in Honduras, or in Porfirio Lobo Sosa's government in Honduras, bothered to read the manual on what a truth commission is, or does, or why you have one, because this is a joke.
"We'll know the truth in ten years" according to La Tribuna, is a quote from Eduardo Stein, the Guatemalan to whom Porfirio Lobo Sosa subcontracted the organization and charter of the truth commission. La Tribuna tells us Stein says the final report of the truth commission will be deposited in the National Archives to be released to the public in 10 years.
Stein writes, "Collection of elements that help to clarify the facts are at all times the key to rebuilding and support these issues of national reconciliation" in the preamble of the charter of the truth commission; but what national reconciliation is being aided by hiding the truth for ten years, we are forced to ask? Is the whole exercise a farce? or is it that Honduras is not ready to have a truth commission? Stein assures us that the OAS is in favor of hiding the truth for 10 years.
Originally this commission was supposed to be formally organized on February 25, but that date slipped and next Stein announced it would be formally chartered on April 29, however, today he announced that "there is particular interest by some international organizations in participating," so the formal charter will be delayed again to give them time to be invited to participate.
"The impact of a final report may ultimately depend less on its content than on a variety of surrounding factors, including when and in what circumstances the report is released and publicized, how widely it is distributed, how much coverage it receives in the media, and, perhaps most importantly, how the political authorities treat the report and whether they have any interest in publicizing and implementing its conclusions and recommendations." Rule of law tools for Post-Conflict States -- Truth Commissions, page 31.May I be the first to be wrong in predicting this report will have no impact, because the political authorities have no interest in knowing, publicizing, or implementing any of its future conclusions. Remind me again why they are going through this exercise? Oh, right, the State Department wanted it? Why again?
Source: http://hondurasculturepolitics.blogspot.com/2010/04/well-know-truth-in-10-years.html
How Not To Do A Truth Commission
by RNS, http://hondurasculturepolitics.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-not-to-do-truth-commission.html
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a 46 page guide to outline the basic principles and approaches to truth commissions. This guide identifies three critical elements that should be present if a country is about to implement a truth commission. First, there must be the political will to allow and encourage a serious inquiry into past abuses. The violent and repressive processes must have stopped. Finally, there must be an interest on the part of the victims and witnesses to past abuses to have an investigation take place and to cooperate with it.
Clearly Honduras already has a problem. There is no "will" in the current government to carry out a "serious inquiry into past abuses". Left to his own devices it is likely that Porfirio Lobo would not be forming a truth commission, as he and the rest of the political elite have emphasized their desire to "move on" through elections and the replacement of the de facto regime, and have moved legislatively to insulate those responsible for the coup from prosecution. It is only the pressure of the United States in making it a requirement for full normalization of relations and the resumption of critically needed international aid that is bringing about Honduran participation in a truth commission.
The illegitimate government of Roberto Micheletti and its Human Rights commissioner, Ramon Custodio, couldn't even bring themselves to recognize that there were human rights abuses being committed even as the international community was telling them all about it. Porfirio Lobo has not said one word about human rights either before or since his election. Will it be part of the truth commission's mandate? I doubt it.
Maria Antonieta de Bogran, one of the three presidential designates for the current Honduran administration, has emphasized that the purpose of the truth commission will be to look at the events before the 28th of June that led up to what happened on that day. Thus, a pro-coup agenda expressed throughout the months by Roberto Micheletti and his faction, the claim that if people just listened to them events before June 28 would be found to have justified the coup, is what the truth commission is being prepared to pursue.
The second critical element defined by the UN has not been met in Honduras either. The violent repressive processes have not stopped. As recently as last Tuesday, two cameramen for Globo TV were kidnapped and tortured by people they identified as plain clothes police who asked them where the money and arms were from the "cuarta urna" campaign. On January 27, 2010, Reporters Without Borders published a report on press freedoms in Honduras since June 28, 2009 which called for the new government to stop the existing practices limiting freedom of the press and threats on journalists. It called on the national Congress to adopt new laws that would promote the diversity, independence,and pluralism in the existing press.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights says a truth commission should be established through a process of consultation and a careful consideration of its mandate. The consultation process increases public understanding of what the truth commission is, and strengthening its mandate through public input gives it the public perception of legitimacy. Consultation should include both victimized communities and civil society organizations.
Maria Antonieta de Bogran said that "President Porfirio Lobo has clearly said that this is a situation that he will honor, that we Hondurans are the ones who have to plan, meet, and organize the reach and the method by which we will form and operate this commission."
Notice, however, that to date there has been no mention of public consultation within Honduras about the truth commission or what its mandate will be. Instead, an ad hoc organizing committee, with the support of OAS technicians, is defining the mandate, and recommending the commissioners.
This procedure increases the perception, publicly voiced by the Frente de Resistencia today, that the truth commission is intended to simply whitewash the coup. Porfirio Lobo has chosen to exclude some sectors of civil society, such as the Frente de Resistencia, from all of his "consultation", and thus, cannot, through the processes he has set in motion, reduce social polarization, or assure the perception of the legitimacy of this truth commission.
By not following the guidelines and "best practices" suggested by the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, the Lobo administration has set up conditions so that the truth commission, which was intended, according to the wording of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord, to promote a national consensus, has already failed.
No comments:
Post a Comment