At the end of September we checked the Canadian Newsstand database to see how much (or, how little) the Canadian media has covered the Honduran crisis. Here are the (still, unscientific) updated stats through to December 3rd, five days after the sham elections.
Of 72 articles run (search terms same as before = "Zelaya" and "Honduras") in this period, 30 (41.6 %) were written by Canadian reporters or op-ed contributors. Half of these (15) were one of two syndicated columns by Canadian ex-pat journalist Gwynn Dyer. The remaining 42 articles were from U.S./foreign news wires (AP, 13; Reuters, 10; AFP, 10; Bloomberg, 1), or newspapers (NY Times, 1, LA Times, 2, Washington Post, 5).
Of the 72 articles, only nine (12.5%) contained a reference to Canadian government policy, or officials such as Peter Kent, Minister of State for Latin America. Five of the nine references were by a Canadian source, and two of the references were found in an op-ed that was critical of Gwynn Dyer's column. On the latter, titled "Zelaya's Game II," (in which he again has nothing to say about Canadian policy, let alone U.S. complicity )Dyer again mis-characterizes the situation in Honduras, asserting that the situation has only been "treated as a classic Latin American coup," when in reality Zelaya was the author of his own demise, "it was all done quite legally." Dyer also falsely claims that Zelaya "failed to build a strong base of popular support among the Honduran poor."
It is frustrating that Dyer's disinformation represents fully half of the (albeit paltry) 'Canadian' coverage/analysis of the Honduran crisis in the mainstream media. Insofar as this reflects his skewed analysis, it also reflects the poor state of what passes for Canadian journalism. Later, more on the Canadian [lack of] reportage. Below, we reproduce in full a length op-ed titled "A Response to Gwynn Dyer," by Helmut and Janet Enns, who both visited Honduras following the coup and contrast their observations with his "cynical and disturbing" column (the full text of the op-ed could not be located online). The op-ed ran in two newspapers in the EMC chain (although Dyer's article ran in four):
A response to Gwynn Dyer
Helmut, Janet Enns. Quinte EMC. Quinte West, Ont.: Nov 5, 2009. pg. 13
Copyright CanWest Digital Media Nov 5, 2009
Gwynn Dyer said, "Let us suppose that Manuel Zelaya, the ousted former president of Honduras, is an intelligent man with a good understanding of how politics works. Then the question is: what is his game?" Gwynn Dyer starts with his assumptions. He assumes the president was only looking after himself, and that any move to the left is evil. I assume Gwynn bases his opinion on "information" put out by the coup regime which has hired a high profile U.S. consultant firm to come up with a range of arguments to justify the coup, arguments which will appeal to a wide range of people.
I would rather start with information from the Honduran people and the Human Rights organizations I visited there in August. For them, it is clear that Zelaya was making changes, many of them miniscule, but changes none the less, that improved the lot of the common people. For them, the coup and the repression that has followed is a clear message from the ruling elite that anything that threatens their power and wealth will not be tolerated. The thousands of protesters I observed have been risking their lives, demanding a return to conditions as they were before June 28, conditions that were not very good, but were slowly improving. At least 20 of those opposed to the coup have been killed, and many more brutally beaten, imprisoned, raped, or "disappeared."
Gwynn Dyer says, "Zelaya's actual removal from power is generally treated as a classic Latin American coup, in which a reforming leader is overthrown by an army in the service of the rich whose power he threatens. Since the Honduran army obeys the Congress and the courts, both of which are very protective of the interests of the rich, there is a bit of truth in that. What's missing is the fact that it was all done quite legally"
Once again, rather than believing Gwynn Dyer, I have much more faith in the accuracy of the facts given by three lawyers we met in Honduras, lawyers who worked for the government and challenged any inappropriate actions of Zelaya while he was in power. They stated that the president has every right to request an opinion poll. That's all he requested. An opinion poll, the results of which would have been presented to Congress, who could have decided whether to act on it or ignore it. Where is the threat in such a poll? We have to go back to what Gwynn Dyer said for the answer. "The Honduran army obeys the Congress and the courts, both of which are very protective of the interests of the rich."
Gwynn Dyer says, "He restored diplomatic relations with Cuba for the first time since 1962 and signed up for Petrocaribe, the agreement by which oil-rich Venezuela sells oil to poorer countries in the region at a reduced price."
Fantastic! An incredibly poor country like Honduras can use all the assistance it can get. If this is a problem, why does the coup regime continue to buy cheap oil from Petrocaribe?
Gwynn Dyer says, "But in practice, he did not achieve much for the Honduran poor."
He may not have achieved "much" in one sense, but in another sense he achieved a lot, being the first president to consistently initiate changes which improved the lot of the poor. He raised the minimum wage by 60 per cent, bringing it from the lowest in Central America to the average. He instituted school food programs, started pensions for the elderly, distributed milk for babies, decreased the price of public transportation and made more scholarships available for students. He put schools in remote rural areas that never had them before.
Regarding the president's return to Honduras, Gwynn Dyer says, "It's the perfect scene for a media watch that puts enormous pressure on Zelaya's opponents to make concessions."
I believe Zelaya returned to Honduras to put pressure on the international community to help resolve the situation. The USA, which could solve this problem any time, has imposed some sanctions to put pressure on the coup regime, and so have many Central American Countries, and European countries, but Canada stands out as doing nothing, in fact Canada is seen as supporting the coup, and quoted by the coup as being supportive of them. In Ottawa, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has passed a motion calling for the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas), Peter Kent, to appear before them, to present Canada's position (on the Honduras crisis) and shed light on questions raised by Canada's actions.
While Gwynn Dyer says he may be a cynic, I may be naive, but from what I learned in Honduras when I was there in August, I tend to agree with the FRENTE, an amalgamation of human rights organizations and unions who supported the referendum long before the coup, and I find Gwynn Dyer's assessment cynical and disturbing. The FRENTE support the return of Zelaya, the democratically elected president, so that normal elections can take place this month, elections in which Zelaya will not be a candidate. Their hope is that the movement to a more just, representative government will continue, and that in time Honduras will truly be a democracy, which represents all people. Their fear is that the repression that has occurred for the last four months will continue. Any voices opposing the coup will continue to be silenced with killings, torture, rape, disappearances. Any small improvements made during Zelaya's term will be wiped out. Multi-national, like Canada's T-shirt giant, Gildan, and mining companies, including Goldcorp will have free rein to do whatever they want, at immeasurable costs to the Honduran people and the environment. The Honduras of today, since June 28, is eerily similar to the era of the military death squads 30 years ago. And, should this coup be successful in Honduras, which Central American country will be next? That is why there was a strong presence in the protests from other Central American countries.
There is a movement now in Honduras by the coup regime to return Zelaya to a position of shared power, but the repression continues, and Congress has not signed the agreement yet. With a few short weeks left until the scheduled elections, can opposition candidates organize an effective campaign in time? This would be an unmanageable timeline here in Canada. For example, the independent candidate, Carlos H. Reyes, has spent part of the last four months in hiding, because of death threats. He was also viciously attacked at a protest three months ago, and has spent his time since the attack in the hospital, and subsequently undergoing therapy for his mutilated wrist. Will he, and others dare to publicly campaign?
This is a struggle for democracy, a struggle that has been going on for many years, passed on from generation to generation. As Karen Spring, a Canadian who works for Rights Action told me, "the winner vs. loser (Micheletti vs. Zelaya) argument is only relevant to those that do not know or care about the real issue in Honduras (which is rooted in an understanding of the history of the country and region) and that is the poverty, oppression, racism, exploitation and exclusion of the majority of Hondurans from the political and social process in the country."
Helmut and Janet Enns
Brighton
Credit: Quinte EMC