Corporate lawyer, former minister of canal affairs, party
secretary general and presidential hopeful
Rómulo Roux on the campaign trail.
Photo from his Twitter feed.
Roux challenges Martinelli for CD presidency
by Eric Jackson
For most of its existence, up to the point that the PRD made the disastrous blunder of nominating Balbina Herrera for president and the American Embassy made the blunder of cajoling Juan Carlos Varela into becoming junior partner in an ill-advised and ephemeral alliance to stop her, Ricardo Martinelli ran Cambio Democratico as a small party family business, the strategy being to win a few seats in the legislature that would give Ricardo Martinelli the bargaining power to get a cabinet post, maybe put some friends and relatives in politically appointed jobs, maybe win some contracts for businesses of the faithful. That’s the ordinary small party game here — parties that actually stand for something rarely win and when they do they are unable to survive for very long. Politics is a business here, not a holy cause. In business here it’s generally foolish to own a piece of an enterprise one does not control and the temptation is to treat political parties according to this family business model as well. However, the larger a party gets the harder it is to maintain such control.
The US-favored Martinelli swept into power in 2009 on a landslide in the presidential vote, but without any sort of legislative caucus to match. But Martinelli used the levers of political patronage to buy or blackmail many elected officials of the other parties to grow Cambio Democratico into one of three mass parties, a rival to the Democratic Revolutionary Party that General Torrijos founded and the Panameñista Party that Arnulfo Arias founded. What Torrijos and Arias stood for hardly matters anymore in those respective parties, but what has Cambio Democratico every stood for other than Ricardo Martinelli?
But CD was defeated in the 2014, notwithstanding a thuggish campaign in which money was stolen from the Panamanian people by way of graft — overpriced government contracts part of the difference skimmed off for a political slush fund that was used to buy votes with bags of groceries, household appliances, building materials or cash. Will this reporter be prosecuted for writing this, as it has been arranged that hardly anyone involved in this crime wave has been or will be convicted? Tough. Truth is a defense.
In the wake of the defeat Martinelli threatened members of his own party with exposure of material in extensive secret files if they didn’t continue to follow his orders. But now Martinelli’s man in charge of rigging justice, Alejandro Moncada Luna, has been demoted from Presiding Magistrate of the Supreme Court of Justice to inmate with a number in El Renacer Penitentiary. The ex-president’s two sons are fugitives with INTERPOL red notice warrants for their arrest. A judge just declared that Martinelli’s brother-in-law has beaten a major rap by remaining in hiding until the statute of limitations ran out, but that will be appealed and there are other investigations. And Ricardo Martinelli Berrocal remains in a Miami jail cell, with a hearing on his appeal from an extradition order scheduled for January 9.
What’s a former president in such legal trouble to do? Why, run for office, any office for which candidates get immunity from investigation and prosecution in Panama. The time it takes to strip away the new layer of immunity will also help run out the calendar for this country’s statutes of limitations, for which there are no tolling provisions. So Ricardo Martinelli announced his candidacy for re-election as party president, by way of a power of attorney given to his wife, Marta Linares de Martinelli, who will be his running mate who seeks the party vice presidency.
Although there are on paper some 340,000 party members, Ricardo Martinelli still considers Cambio Democratico his personal property. He’s the only president it has ever had and he has been a hand-on autocrat since he founded the organization. Internal democracy? Not for him. This past October they had the first internal party elections in more than a decade. Fewer than 70,000 people showed up, which was spun as a great show of support. But meanwhile most of the party’s legislative caucus defies Martinelli, some of them hiving off into new parties, and most of those who served in top Martinelli administration posts are now under investigation for this or that crime, mostly bribery, peculation or graft.
The Electoral Tribunal has more or less prohibited the publication of opinion polls between now and the May 2019 elections — the better to keep some independent from rising into the public’s field of view — but it’s hard to see how CD maintains its status as a major party in the next elections. Especially so, if it’s being run by Ricardo Martinelli from a jail cell.
Rómulo Roux, of the corporate law firm Morgan & Morgan, former canal affairs minister and not currently the focus of any criminal investigation, probably sees it differently. Perhaps he figures that a 2019 campaign is a lost cause for him and for CD, but a stepping stone toward a more successful run in the future beyond that year. In any case, he wants to run for president, he will have a crowded field of scandal-tainted opponents to face and the new election rules say he can’t be campaigning for president of Panama. He can, however, keep himself in the public eye by campaigning for president of Cambio Democratico.
The argument is simple enough. “Ricardo is the victim of a voracious persecution by President Varela and the current government. And as a product of that persecution, he can’t be with us, he can’t physically assume the leadership of the party in Panama,” Roux told assembled reporters on December 9 in Chiriqui. He was flanked by such party notables as legislators Carlos Afú, Rony Araúz and Edwin Zúñiga, along with CD women’s branch leader Ana Giselle Rosas.
Ricardo Martinelli had announced his candidacy four days earlier and from his camp there came immediate expressions of outrage. Roux is a “Trojan horse,” a “traitor” and so on, go some of the milder responses. It might be a fun campaign, except that there seems to be little sense of humor on either side.
Martinelli’s mouthpiece rants.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
Ambassador Eleanor Roosevelt, who presided over the UN committee that drafted the December 10, 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ~ Embajadora Eleanor Roosevelt, quien presidió el comisión de la ONU que redactó la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos del 10 de diciembre de 1948.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
En la ONU, 10 diciembre 1948. ~ At the UN on December 10, 1948.
La Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos
Preámbulo
Considerando que la libertad, la justicia y la paz en el mundo tienen por base el reconocimiento de la dignidad intrínseca y de los derechos iguales e inalienables de todos los miembros de la familia humana;
Considerando que el desconocimiento y el menosprecio de los derechos humanos han originado actos de barbarie ultrajantes para la conciencia de la humanidad, y que se ha proclamado, como la aspiración más elevada del hombre, el advenimiento de un mundo en que los seres humanos, liberados del temor y de la miseria, disfruten de la libertad de palabra y de la libertad de creencias;
Considerando esencial que los derechos humanos sean protegidos por un régimen de Derecho, a fin de que el hombre no se vea compelido al supremo recurso de la rebelión contra la tiranía y la opresión;
Considerando también esencial promover el desarrollo de relaciones amistosas entre las naciones;
Considerando que los pueblos de las Naciones Unidas han reafirmado en la Carta su fe en los derechos fundamentales del hombre, en la dignidad y el valor de la persona humana y en la igualdad de derechos de hombres y mujeres, y se han declarado resueltos a promover el progreso social y a elevar el nivel de vida dentro de un concepto más amplio de la libertad;
Considerando que los Estados Miembros se han comprometido a asegurar, en cooperación con la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, el respeto universal y efectivo a los derechos y libertades fundamentales del hombre, y
Considerando que una concepción común de estos derechos y libertades es de la mayor importancia para el pleno cumplimiento de dicho compromiso;
LA ASAMBLEA GENERAL proclama la presente DECLARACIÓN UNIVERSAL DE DERECHOS HUMANOS como ideal común por el que todos los pueblos y naciones deben esforzarse, a fin de que tanto los individuos como las instituciones, inspirándose constantemente en ella, promuevan, mediante la enseñanza y la educación, el respeto a estos derechos y libertades, y aseguren, por medidas progresivas de carácter nacional e internacional, su reconocimiento y aplicación universales y efectivos, tanto entre los pueblos de los Estados Miembros como entre los de los territorios colocados bajo su jurisdicción.
Artículo 1.
Todos los seres humanos nacen libres e iguales en dignidad y derechos y, dotados como están de razón y conciencia, deben comportarse fraternalmente los unos con los otros.
Artículo 2.
Toda persona tiene todos los derechos y libertades proclamados en esta Declaración, sin distinción alguna de raza, color, sexo, idioma, religión, opinión política o de cualquier otra índole, origen nacional o social, posición económica, nacimiento o cualquier otra condición. Además, no se hará distinción alguna fundada en la condición política, jurídica o internacional del país o territorio de cuya jurisdicción dependa una persona, tanto si se trata de un país independiente, como de un territorio bajo administración fiduciaria, no autónomo o sometido a cualquier otra limitación de soberanía.
Artículo 3.
Todo individuo tiene derecho a la vida, a la libertad y a la seguridad de su persona.
Artículo 4.
Nadie estará sometido a esclavitud ni a servidumbre, la esclavitud y la trata de esclavos están prohibidas en todas sus formas.
Artículo 5.
Nadie será sometido a torturas ni a penas o tratos crueles, inhumanos o degradantes.
Artículo 6.
Todo ser humano tiene derecho, en todas partes, al reconocimiento de su personalidad jurídica.
Artículo 7.
Todos son iguales ante la ley y tienen, sin distinción, derecho a igual protección de la ley. Todos tienen derecho a igual protección contra toda discriminación que infrinja esta Declaración y contra toda provocación a tal discriminación.
Artículo 8.
Toda persona tiene derecho a un recurso efectivo ante los tribunales nacionales competentes, que la ampare contra actos que violen sus derechos fundamentales reconocidos por la constitución o por la ley.
Artículo 9.
Nadie podrá ser arbitrariamente detenido, preso ni desterrado.
Artículo 10.
Toda persona tiene derecho, en condiciones de plena igualdad, a ser oída públicamente y con justicia por un tribunal independiente e imparcial, para la determinación de sus derechos y obligaciones o para el examen de cualquier acusación contra ella en materia penal.
Artículo 11.
1. Toda persona acusada de delito tiene derecho a que se presuma su inocencia mientras no se pruebe su culpabilidad, conforme a la ley y en juicio público en el que se le hayan asegurado todas las garantías necesarias para su defensa. 2. Nadie será condenado por actos u omisiones que en el momento de cometerse no fueron delictivos según el Derecho nacional o internacional. Tampoco se impondrá pena más grave que la aplicable en el momento de la comisión del delito.
Artículo 12.
Nadie será objeto de injerencias arbitrarias en su vida privada, su familia, su domicilio o su correspondencia, ni de ataques a su honra o a su reputación. Toda persona tiene derecho a la protección de la ley contra tales injerencias o ataques.
Artículo 13.
1. Toda persona tiene derecho a circular libremente y a elegir su residencia en el territorio de un Estado. 2. Toda persona tiene derecho a salir de cualquier país, incluso del propio, y a regresar a su país.
Artículo 14.
1. En caso de persecución, toda persona tiene derecho a buscar asilo, y a disfrutar de él, en cualquier país. 2. Este derecho no podrá ser invocado contra una acción judicial realmente originada por delitos comunes o por actos opuestos a los propósitos y principios de las Naciones Unidas.
Artículo 15.
1. Toda persona tiene derecho a una nacionalidad. 2. A nadie se privará arbitrariamente de su nacionalidad ni del derecho a cambiar de nacionalidad.
Artículo 16.
1. Los hombres y las mujeres, a partir de la edad núbil, tienen derecho, sin restricción alguna por motivos de raza, nacionalidad o religión, a casarse y fundar una familia, y disfrutarán de iguales derechos en cuanto al matrimonio, durante el matrimonio y en caso de disolución del matrimonio. 2. Sólo mediante libre y pleno consentimiento de los futuros esposos podrá contraerse el matrimonio. 3. La familia es el elemento natural y fundamental de la sociedad y tiene derecho a la protección de la sociedad y del Estado.
Artículo 17.
1. Toda persona tiene derecho a la propiedad, individual y colectivamente. 2. Nadie será privado arbitrariamente de su propiedad.
Artículo 18.
Toda persona tiene derecho a la libertad de pensamiento, de conciencia y de religión; este derecho incluye la libertad de cambiar de religión o de creencia, así como la libertad de manifestar su religión o su creencia, individual y colectivamente, tanto en público como en privado, por la enseñanza, la práctica, el culto y la observancia.
Artículo 19.
Todo individuo tiene derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión; este derecho incluye el de no ser molestado a causa de sus opiniones, el de investigar y recibir informaciones y opiniones, y el de difundirlas, sin limitación de fronteras, por cualquier medio de expresión.
Artículo 20.
1. Toda persona tiene derecho a la libertad de reunión y de asociación pacíficas. 2. Nadie podrá ser obligado a pertenecer a una asociación.
Artículo 21.
1. Toda persona tiene derecho a participar en el gobierno de su país, directamente o por medio de representantes libremente escogidos. 2. Toda persona tiene el derecho de acceso, en condiciones de igualdad, a las funciones públicas de su país. 3. La voluntad del pueblo es la base de la autoridad del poder público; esta voluntad se expresará mediante elecciones auténticas que habrán de celebrarse periódicamente, por sufragio universal e igual y por voto secreto u otro procedimiento equivalente que garantice la libertad del voto.
Artículo 22.
Toda persona, como miembro de la sociedad, tiene derecho a la seguridad social, y a obtener, mediante el esfuerzo nacional y la cooperación internacional, habida cuenta de la organización y los recursos de cada Estado, la satisfacción de los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales, indispensables a su dignidad y al libre desarrollo de su personalidad.
Artículo 23.
1. Toda persona tiene derecho al trabajo, a la libre elección de su trabajo, a condiciones equitativas y satisfactorias de trabajo y a la protección contra el desempleo. 2. Toda persona tiene derecho, sin discriminación alguna, a igual salario por trabajo igual. 3. Toda persona que trabaja tiene derecho a una remuneración equitativa y satisfactoria, que le asegure, así como a su familia, una existencia conforme a la dignidad humana y que será completada, en caso necesario, por cualesquiera otros medios de protección social. 4. Toda persona tiene derecho a fundar sindicatos y a sindicarse para la defensa de sus intereses.
Artículo 24.
Toda persona tiene derecho al descanso, al disfrute del tiempo libre, a una limitación razonable de la duración del trabajo y a vacaciones periódicas pagadas.
Artículo 25.
1. Toda persona tiene derecho a un nivel de vida adecuado que le asegure, así como a su familia, la salud y el bienestar, y en especial la alimentación, el vestido, la vivienda, la asistencia médica y los servicios sociales necesarios; tiene asimismo derecho a los seguros en caso de desempleo, enfermedad, invalidez, viudez, vejez u otros casos de pérdida de sus medios de subsistencia por circunstancias independientes de su voluntad. 2. La maternidad y la infancia tienen derecho a cuidados y asistencia especiales. Todos los niños, nacidos de matrimonio o fuera de matrimonio, tienen derecho a igual protección social.
Artículo 26.
1. Toda persona tiene derecho a la educación. La educación debe ser gratuita, al menos en lo concerniente a la instrucción elemental y fundamental. La instrucción elemental será obligatoria. La instrucción técnica y profesional habrá de ser generalizada; el acceso a los estudios superiores será igual para todos, en función de los méritos respectivos. 2. La educación tendrá por objeto el pleno desarrollo de la personalidad humana y el fortalecimiento del respeto a los derechos humanos y a las libertades fundamentales; favorecerá la comprensión, la tolerancia y la amistad entre todas las naciones y todos los grupos étnicos o religiosos, y promoverá el desarrollo de las actividades de las Naciones Unidas para el mantenimiento de la paz. 3. Los padres tendrán derecho preferente a escoger el tipo de educación que habrá de darse a sus hijos.
Artículo 27.
1. Toda persona tiene derecho a tomar parte libremente en la vida cultural de la comunidad, a gozar de las artes y a participar en el progreso científico y en los beneficios que de él resulten. 2. Toda persona tiene derecho a la protección de los intereses morales y materiales que le correspondan por razón de las producciones científicas, literarias o artísticas de que sea autora.
Artículo 28.
Toda persona tiene derecho a que se establezca un orden social e internacional en el que los derechos y libertades proclamados en esta Declaración se hagan plenamente efectivos.
Artículo 29.
1. Toda persona tiene deberes respecto a la comunidad, puesto que sólo en ella puede desarrollar libre y plenamente su personalidad. 2. En el ejercicio de sus derechos y en el disfrute de sus libertades, toda persona estará solamente sujeta a las limitaciones establecidas por la ley con el único fin de asegurar el reconocimiento y el respeto de los derechos y libertades de los demás, y de satisfacer las justas exigencias de la moral, del orden público y del bienestar general en una sociedad democrática. 3. Estos derechos y libertades no podrán, en ningún caso, ser ejercidos en oposición a los propósitos y principios de las Naciones Unidas.
Artículo 30.
Nada en esta Declaración podrá interpretarse en el sentido de que confiere derecho alguno al Estado, a un grupo o a una persona, para emprender y desarrollar actividades o realizar actos tendientes a la supresión de cualquiera de los derechos y libertades proclamados en esta Declaración.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information. Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web.
Legislator and PRD Secretary General Pedro Miguel González, center, flanked by party activists at a December 6 press conference. Graphic from a PRD video.
PRD claims to have proof — the votes,
however, may be a different matter
by Eric Jackson
Late on the afternoon of December 6, perhaps on the last reasonable news day before a long holiday weekend, the Democratic Revolutionary Party gathered the faithful with reporters for a press conference about the general situation in Panama. The legislature has been out of session since the end of October and December 8 was Mothers Day here, which is surely a big part of the explanation of who was not there. Not in the picture were many members of the PRD legislative caucus, nor contenders for the party’s 2019 presidential nomination, nor leading figures in the factions that González defeated to win his current party post.
The big takeaway from the discussion was that González maintained that the PRD has all of the necessary legal proofs to start a criminal investigation of President Juan Carlos Varela for accepting illegal campaign contributions from the notorious Brazilian construction conglomerate Odebrecht. About that González is surely right. However, when it’s the president it’s not a court case. Such a matter would have to be investigated, prosecuted and tried by the National Assembly. Under Panama’s current constitution, the relevant question is whether the votes would be there to move against the president.
If all other parties in the legislature ganged up on Varela, his Panameñistas would not have the votes to stop or much delay an investigation that could lead to an impeachment and criminal trial. However, with his party teaming up with dissidents from both the PRD and Ricardo Martinelli’s Cambio Democratico, there is a functional majority in the legislature that gives Varela more or less what he wants. Plus, as to both the Odebrecht and now the Blue Apple cases, all indications are that the present administration and the previous two were profoundly involved in bribery and graft to favor players in the construction and finance industries. PRD members were on the take as well.
González may have fired the first propaganda shot of the 2019 election cycle, but how serious was he as a legislator?
Two days earlier, Varela announced that “sometime after December 15” there would be a special legislative session. There almost has to be, as two Supreme Court magistrates, Oydén Ortega and Jerónimo Mejía, end their 10-year terms on the high court as of December 31. That is, unless replacements have not been ratified. But when that happens there tends to be a brief period when no business of consequence is done at the court until the scheduled replacements are made, even if the old magistrates remain in office and draw salaries until the new ones take office.
On Mothers Day — when hardly anyone was paying attention — Varela announced that the special session to ratify Supreme Court nominees would begin on December 18. He did not say who those nominees would be. The president also declared that as he is president and not a candidate he will not answer any of González’s assertions, nor the published reports and sworn testimony about Odebrecht money flowing into his 2014 campaign via the party insider and erstwhile diplomat Jaime Lasso. Lasso says that the Panameñistas got $700,000 from Odebrecht, but the PRD is claiming that the figure was more like $12 million.
If the PRD has the votes to start a criminal investigation in the legislature, one would expect that they have the votes needed to block Varela’s nominees, whoever they might be. But some anti-corruption activists suggest that the game that González is playing is not about running Varela out of the presidency but about getting someone from the PRD appointed as a magistrate or alternate. With the exit of Ortega and Mejía and their suplentes the PRD will be fresh out of people on the high court if no such deal is struck.
The more innocent explanation is that González is positioning his party as “the real opposition” — as against a Cambio Democratico slate. The latter will likely be dismissed as mostly a bunch of thugs running for office just to get candidates’ immunity from investigation and prosecution but no longer a serious alternative to win control of the government. Ricardo Martinelli’s appeal of a federal magistrate’s extradition order will be heard on January 9 and if he loses he might be expected to appeal to higher courts. Meanwhile the former president and first lady have declared themselves to be candidates for party president and vice president respectively, which gives them fresh layers of immunity. Ricardo Martinelli has made noises about running for mayor of Panama City in 2019.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
Ehud Barak has “broken the silence.” He has published an article in The New York Times attacking our prime minister in the most abrasive terms. In other words, he has done exactly the same as the group of ex-soldiers who call themselves “Breaking the Silence,” who are accused of washing our dirty linen abroad. They expose war crimes to which they have been witnesses, or even participants.
But apart from the attack on Binyamin Netanyahu, Barak has used the article to publish his Peace Plan. A former chief-of-staff of the Israeli army and a former prime minister, Barak is obviously planning a comeback, and his peace plan is part of the effort. There seems to be, anyhow, open season for Peace Plans in our region.
I respect the intelligence of Barak. Many years ago, when he was still the deputy chief-of-staff, he unexpectedly invited me for a talk. We discussed the military history of the 17th century (military history is an old hobby of mine) and I soon realized that he was a real expert. I enjoyed it very much.
On a spring evening In May 1999, I was part of a huge jubilant crowd in Tel-Aviv’s Rabin Square after Barak had won the Knesset elections and become prime minister. He promised us “the dawn of a new day.” In particular, he promised to make peace with the Palestinians.
Intellectually, Barak is superior to all other politicians on the Israeli scene. Soon enough it appeared that this may be a handicap.
Intelligent people tend to be arrogant. They despise people of lesser mental powers. Knowing that he had all the answers, Barak demanded that President Clinton call a meeting with Yasser Arafat.
On the morrow I spoke with Arafat and found him deeply worried. Nothing has been prepared, no prior exchange of views, nothing. He did not want to go to the meeting which he thought was bound to fail, but could not refuse an invitation from the president of the United States.
The result was catastrophe. Barak, sure of himself as usual, presented his peace plan. It was more accommodating than any prior Israeli plan, but still fell far short of the Palestinians’ minimum. The meeting broke up.
What does a diplomat do in such circumstances? He announces that “we had a fruitful exchange of views. We have not yet reached total agreement, but the negotiations will go on, and there will be more meetings, until we reach agreement.”
Barak did not say that. Neither did he say: “Sorry, I am totally ignorant of the Palestinian point of view, and I shall now study it seriously.”
Instead, Barak came home and announced that Israel had proposed the most generous terms ever, that the Palestinians had rejected everything, that the Palestinians want to throw us into the sea, that we have “no partner for peace.”
If this had been declared by a right-wing politician, everybody would have shrugged. But coming from the leader of the Peace Camp, it was devastating. Its effects can be felt to this very day.
So here comes Barak, the new Barak, with a brand-new Peace Plan. What does he say? The aim, he writes, is “separation” from the Palestinians. Not peace, not cooperation, just separation. Get rid of them. “Peace” is not popular just now.
How separation? Israel will annex the new Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and the “settlement blocs” — the clusters of Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line but close to it. He agrees to “land swaps.” And then comes the killer: “overall security responsibility in the West Bank will remain in the hands of the Israel Defense Forces as long as necessary.”
And the sad conclusion: “Even if it is not possible to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at this stage — and it probably is not…”
If there is one Palestinian who would accept these terms, I shall be surprised. But Barak, then and now, does not care for the views and feelings of the Palestinians. Just like Netanyahu, who at least has the decency not to propose a “Peace Plan.” Unlike Trump.
Donald Trump is not a genius like Barak, but he also has a Peace Plan.
A group of right-wing Jews, including his son-in-law (also no genius, he) have been working on this for months. He has proposed it to Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat’s successor, to the new Saudi Crown Prince and other Arab princes. It seems to provide for a Palestinian State composed of several small isolated enclaves on the West Bank, without Jerusalem and without an army.
This is sheer lunacy. Not one single Palestinian and not one single other Arab would accept this. Worse, anyone proposing such a caricature of a state betrays utter ignorance.
That’s where the real problem lies: it is much worse than just not knowing. It demonstrates abysmal contempt for the Palestinians and for Arabs in general, a basic belief that their feelings, if any, don’t matter at all. This is a remnant of colonial times.
Palestinians, and Arabs at large, do have deep feelings and convictions. They are a proud people. They still remember the times when Muslims were incomparably more advanced than the barbarian Europeans. To be treated like dirt by the US president and his Jewish entourage hurts them deeply, and may lead to a disturbance in our region that no Arab prince, hired by the USA, will be able to control.
This especially concerns Jerusalem. For Muslims, this is not just a town. It is their third holiest place, the spot from where the Prophet — peace be upon him — ascended to heaven. For a Muslim to give up Jerusalem is inconceivable.
The latest decisions of Trump concerning Jerusalem are — to put it mildly — idiotic. Arabs are furious, Israelis don’t really care, America’s Arab stooges, princes and all, are deeply worried. If disturbances erupt, they may well be swept away.
And what for? For one evening’s headline?
There is no subject in our region, and perhaps in the world — that is more delicate. Jerusalem is holy to three world religions, and one cannot argue with holiness.
In the past I have devoted much thought to this subject. I love Jerusalem (contrary to the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, who was disgusted by it and left it in a hurry after one single night). The early Zionists disliked the city as a symbol of all that is wrong and foul in Judaism.
Some twenty years ago I composed a manifesto, together with my late friend, Feisal al-Husseini, the leader of Jerusalem’s Arabs and the scion of its most noble family. Hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians signed it.
Its title was “Our Jerusalem.” It started with the words: “Jerusalem is ours, Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims, Christians and Jews.”
It went on: “Our Jerusalem Is a mosaic of all the cultures, all the religions and all the periods that enriched the city, from earliest antiquity to this very day — Canaanites and Jebusites and Israelites, Jews and Hellenes, Romans and Byzantines, Christians and Muslims, Arabs and Mamelukes, Othmanlis and Britons, Palestinians and Israelis.
“Our Jerusalem must be united, open to all, and belonging to all its inhabitants, without borders and barbed wire in its midst.”
And the practical conclusion: “Our Jerusalem must be the capital of the two states that will live side by side in this country — West Jerusalem the capital of the State of Israel and East Jerusalem the capital of the State of Palestine.”
I wish I could nail this Manifesto to the doors of the White House.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
If you are the owner of a credit or a debit card, there is a non-negligible chance that you may be subject to fraud, like millions of other people around the world.
Starting in the 1980s, there has been an impressive increase in the use of credit, debit and pre-paid cards internationally. According to an October 2016 Nilson Report, in 2015 more than $31 trillion (US dollars, as are all such figures here) were generated worldwide by these payment systems, up 7.3% from 2014.
Thanks to new online money-transfer systems, such as PayPal, and the spread of e-commerce around the world — including, increasingly, in the developing world — which was slow to adopt online payments — these trends are expected to continue.
This is a goldmine for cybercriminals. According to the Nilson Report, worldwide losses from card fraud rose to $21 billion in 2015, up from about $8 billion in 2010. By 2020, that number is expected to reach $31 billion.
Cybercrime costs vendors in other ways too. They are charged with providing customers with a high standard of security. If they are negligent in this duty, credit card companies may charge them the cost of reimbursing a fraud.
card-not-present (CNP) frauds: This, the most common kind of fraud, occurs when the cardholder’s information is stolen and used illegally without the physical presence of the card. This kind of fraud usually occurs online, and may be the result of so-called “phishing” emails sent by fraudsters impersonating credible institutions to steal personal or financial information via a contaminated link.
card-present-frauds: This is less common today, but it’s still worth watching out for. It often takes the form of “skimming” — when a dishonest seller swipes a consumer’s credit card into a device that stores the information. Once that data is used to make a purchase, the consumer’s account is charged.
Credit card machines are sometimes used in the fraud called ‘skimming’ in which your card details are duplicated. Izcool/Wikimedia
The mechanism of a credit card transaction
Credit card fraud is facilitated, in part, because credit card transactions are a simple, two-step process: authorization and settlement.
At the beginning, those involved in the transaction (customer, card issuer, merchant and merchant’s bank) send and receive information to authorize or reject a given purchase. If the purchase is authorized, it is settled by an exchange of money, which usually takes place several days after the authorization.
Once a purchase had been authorized, there is no going back. That means that all fraud detection measures must be done during in the first step of a transaction.
Buying online is practical and fast… yet risky when we do not know the vendors or their websites well. Photo Mix/Pexels
Here’s how it works (in a dramatically simplified fashion).
Once companies such as Visa or MasterCard have licensed their brands to a card issuer — a lender like, say, Barclays Bank — and to the merchant’s bank, they fix the terms of the transaction agreement.
Then, the card issuer physically delivers the credit card to the consumer. To make a purchase with it, the cardholder gives his card to the vendor (or, online, manually enters the card information), who forwards data on the consumer and the desired purchase to the merchant’s bank.
The bank, in turn, routes the required information to the card issuer for analysis and approval — or rejection. The card issuer’s final decision is sent back to both the merchant’s bank and the vendor.
Rejection may be issued only in two situations: if the balance on the cardholder’s account is insufficient or if, based on the data provided by the merchant’s bank, there is suspicion of fraud.
Incorrect suspicions of fraud is inconvenient for the consumer, whose purchase has been denied and whose card may summarily be blocked by the card issuer, and poses a reputational damage to the vendor.
How to counter frauds?
Based on my research, which examines how advanced statistical and probabilistic techniques could better detect fraud, sequential analysis — coupled with new technology — holds the key.
Thanks to the continuous monitoring of cardholder expenditure and information — including the time, amount and geographical coordinates of each purchase — it should be possible to develop a computer model that would calculate the probability that a purchase is fraudulent. If the probability passes a certain threshold, the card issuer would be issued an alarm.
The company could then decide to either block the card directly or undertake further investigation, such as calling the consumer.
The strength of this model, which applies a well-known mathematical theory called optimal stopping theory to fraud detection, is that it aims at either maximizing an expected payoff or minimizing an expected cost. In other words, all the computations would be aimed at limiting the frequency of false alarms.
My research is still underway. But, in the meantime, to reduce significantly the risk of falling victim to credit card fraud, here are some golden rules.
First, never click on links in emails that ask you to provide personal information, even if the sender appears to be your bank.
Second, before you buy something online from an unknown seller, google the vendor’s name to see whether consumer feedback has been mainly positive.
And, finally, when you make online payments, check that the web page address starts with https://, a communication protocol for secure data transfer, and confirm that the web page does not contain grammatical errors or strange words. That suggests it may be a fake designed solely to steal your financial data.
Panamanian Mothers Day, December 8, is the Catholic faith’s Day of the Immaculate Conception. El Día de la Madre Panameña, el 8 de diciembre, es el Día de la Inmaculada Concepción de la fe Católica.
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information. Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web.
Blue Apple emerges from the shadows
to suggest systemic corruption
by Eric Jackson
So, what is this Blue Apple mentioned in some of Panama’s news media and carefully avoided by others? Blue Apple Services Inc is a corporation organized in 2003 by attorney Federico Antonio Barrios. Under Panamanian corporate secrecy laws its beneficial ownership isn’t public knowledge. Barrios is reportedly under investigation in the case but seems not to have been formally charged with anything and may not have had anything to do with running the company. It’s business, on the face of it, was factoring, buying accounts receivable from companies at a discount. In this endeavor it is said to have done business with several of Panama City’s largest banks. Customers, it seems, were construction companies, domestic and foreign, which did business with the Panamanian government.
President Varela acknowledges that there is an ongoing criminal investigation. Attorney General Kenia Porcell does likewise but declines further comment because it’s an ongoing investigation. Such details as have been suggested to the public largely come from the National Front for the Defense of Economic and Social Rights (FRENADESO), a hard left coalition led by the semi-underground communist November 29th National Liberation Movement (MLN-29) and whose leaders also include the top people in the SUNTRACS construction workers union.
There are many people who disagree with FRENADESO politics — they were a small fringe as a 2014 participant in electoral politics via the Broad Front for Democracy (FAD) — and for that reason will discount what they say. It’s common belief-reinforcing selectivity, but there are a couple of reasons not to engage in it with respect to these people in this case.
First of all there is the SUNTRACS record. For a generation the union’s leaders have made few mistakes with respect to the construction industry. They are well informed, not only from reading the newspapers and industry publications, not only from having a brain trust of sorts in academia, not only from carefully preserving memories of their dealings with people and companies in their industry, but also most probably from what some might call industrial espionage and others opposition research — surely they have some confidential sources that help them to make very accurate assessments of with whom they deal and what the Panamanian economy will bear for their union at any given time. If FRENADESO or SUNTRACS says something about the operations of the construction industry and associated financial transactions, it is usually accurate. It may not be the entire story, but it is unlikely to be an error or a lie.
Second, although the allegation that SUNTRACS leaders have sold out and are secretly rich seems to be eternally recycling, it has never been demonstrated. Labor leaders Genaro López and Saúl Méndez receive good salaries but do not live in ostentatious luxury, are not known to be business partners with anyone in the local or international business elites and — very important in Panama — are not related to the rabiblanco families. The bonds of family loyalties and business ties that kill many an important story in Panama’s corporate mainstream media just don’t apply to FRENDADESO.
The gist of the FRENADESO allegation is that virtually all construction companies doing business with the Panamanian government, foreign and domestic, with the large exception of Odebrecht, used Blue Apple’s services. There were allegedly not factoring in any usual sense, but rather that the construction companies would deposit 10 percent of the amount of their contracts into Blue Apple, and these funds would be laundered and paid out to people in the government or members of their families or to companies controlled by such as kickbacks from the contracts.
A number that has been reported by various media is of $39.6 million having been traced through Blue Apple. If the scheme is on the scale and involving the cast of characters that FRENADESO suggests, the number is way low and we would be dealing with a partial figure.
From whence the money went into Blue Apple, if FRENADESO is right, implicates a number of the wealthiest people in Panama and indeed a company now controlled by one of the world’s richest men. The payout, FRENADESO alleges, implicate all of the parties of Panama’s political caste, including figures in the Torrijos, Martinell and Varela administrations.
So into what and where did the money that passed through Blue Apple go? Mansions on the beaches are on the list, as are expensive cars. Also, investments in entertainment, gambling and consulting businesses, the former which may be linked to the news media and all three of which are apt for money laundering purposes. In any case people who control the construction and financial businesses suggested would also own stakes in Panama’s large media, or be closely related to people who do.
The Blue Apple affair intersects, by some of the individuals or institutions involved, with the Financial Pacific plethora of scandals, jailed former Supreme Court presiding magistrate Alejandro Moncada Luna’s scheme with corrupt courthouse construction and remodeling contracts and the laundering of the proceeds from them, and former Vice President Felipe “Pipo” Virzi’s manipulations via the old Banco Universal and otherwise.
Another scandal in the orbit of overpriced public works projects with laundered kickbacks Two noteworthy that is in the news of late and on the attorney general’s docket sits on the Panama Canal Authority board of directors in the persons of Nicolas Corcione Pérez Balladares and Henri Mizrachi Kohen. There, through a company named New Business, laundered kickbacks from government contracts were allegedly used by former President Ricardo Martinelli to buy news media properties, most notably the parent company for El Panama America and La Critica. Corcione and Mizrachi have been missing from ACP board meetings for months and there are suggestions of sealed INTERPOL warrants on money laundering charges outstanding. With Corcione it’s not the first time that the ACP and President Varela have done a dance about whether anyone has the power to remove a member of the ACP board who is implicated in public corruption.
The basic design of rigged government contract awards with about a 10 percent kickback was the scheme of the Martinelli administration’s dealings with the Italian state-controlled Finmeccanica companies for helicopters, patrol boats, radar installations and digital mapping services. At the time Silvio Berlusconi was running Italy and this sort of transaction was how he funded his political campaigns. But if the Blue Apple scheme is as FRENADESO suggests, then it would not be be a modus operandi that naive Panamanians learned from wily Italians, nor would it be a monument to Ricardo Martinelli’s creativity.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
Salvador Nasralla, television personality and should-be president-elect of Honduras if the votes are ever counted properly, greets police officers who have refused to suppress anti-government protests. Nasralla is a centrist who is allied with a leftist party headed by former President Mel Zelaya. The alliance has a rather minimal program of ending the eight-year dictatorship and cleaning up the rampant corruption in public institutions.
Comes the revolution?
editor’s note
Since the 2009 coup in Honduras, they kill journalists there. There have been 59 journalists slain over these past eight years, and if it is true that Honduran society is a violent one, these were not random acts nor were they the private acts of persons without protection of the government. It’s a death squad regime, one that’s even deadlier for indigenous land rights and environmental activists. The country’s LGBT communities have also been special targets for the death squads. Thus it should come as little surprise that few media organizations that go beyond publishing government press releases were operating in open fashion in Honduras when the voters took the incumbent National Party and a president trying to perpetuate himself by surprise.
But the fraud was pretty flagrant, the country erupted in protests and ordinary citizens and unregistered freelancers stepped into the void where major news organizations might have been. People were shot down, and more people kept up the pressure on the streets. Then the police refused to put down the riots and protests anymore, about one-fifth of the national force gathered at the headquarters of the US-trained COBRA riot squad and under international pressure the Electoral Tribunal backed away from their sneeringly obvious vote count fraud.
Now things are at a pause, or in limbo, with two men claiming to be president-elect and no agreed way forward.
What follow are documents and scenes that have been by and large ignored by corporate news outlets in the United States and Panama. As the crisis has unfolded The Panama News, which has nobody on the scene in Honduras, has been reposting things, mainly by freelancers of the Nasralla camp, on its Twitter feed and Facebook page. This has been enough to scoop the main Panamanian media.
The fallen: Kimberly Dayana Fonseca, 19, was shot dead in Tegucigalpa at a demonstration in favor of Salvador Nasralla.
Lenca people demand Juan Orlando Hernandez (JOH) step down immediately!
by the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH)
For over a week, the people have defended in the streets the will that they expressed at the polls. The flagrant theft that they want to carry out through fraud is undeniable. The people know it and the international community should understand that the narrow interests of Juan Orlando Hernández (JOH) and the elite powers that he represents alone are maintaining the crisis by refusing to accept defeat.
It has been clearly demonstrated how the leadership of the National Party, which includes the President of the Supreme Electoral Council David Matamoros, have committed fraud in the presidential elections in order to illegally keep themselves power. Therefore, results from this institution are not and will not be reliable nor in any way credible, and the people have shown as much in the streets.
COPINH is clear that the hundreds of mobilizations, highway blockades, peaceful protests and expressions of resistance go beyond this electoral process. They represent a cry of the people as a whole to move beyond the hatred, violence and submissiveness that have characterized the years of JOH’s government and his other coup-supporting predecessors, years inundated with corruption, impunity, assassinations, approval of spurious laws, handing over of territories, illegal concessions, and poverty and hunger for the majority.
The struggle in the territories and in the streets is the key action in these moments and must continue. The dignity and strength of the people’s struggle in the streets is what has led the National Police and the COBRA forces to set down the arms they were using against the people. We salute this dignified action and call on the armed forces and other repressive state bodies to understand their role as part of the people and respect the actions of that people.
It is clear that the call in the streets is not just about recognizing the obvious electoral victory of Salvador Nasralla, but is above all the cry of the Honduran people to say JOH MUST GO! It is no longer about him recognizing the victory, it is about him stepping down from the presidency and thereby ending the crisis to which our Honduras has been subjected.
COPINH calls on the international community to take all pertinent measures to ensure that JOH’s desperation to maintain power does not lead to more spilling of blood by the Honduran people.
As such, the Lenca people, organized in COPINH demand that:
JOH’s government immediately hand over the presidency to a temporary government of national consensus until January 27th, 2018, the day in which Salvador Nasralla will be seated as President.
The resistance in favor of recognition of the people’s will as expressed at the polls strengthen and consolidate through territorial organization.
That the international community take a side and activate the pertinent mechanisms so that JOH’s desperation to maintain power does not lead to further spilling of blood by the Honduran people.
For the blood shed by Berta Cáceres and all of our ancestors, we demand justice! We demand that end of this killer regime!
With the ancestral strength of Berta, Iselaca, Etempica and Mota we raise our voices full of Life, Justice and Peace.
The dashed vertical line is when the Electoral Tribunal said that the vote counting system broke down. The fraud is clear, but the documentation to go back and do an honest count may have been destroyed.
Statement by the Spokesperson of the EU High Representative on the situation in Honduras
issued in Brussels, December 5, 2017
One week after the holding of elections in Honduras, the EU calls for calm and restraint. We expect parties to express their concerns peacefully, using the legal mechanisms available to them. It is essential that the electoral authorities remain open and responsive to possible appeals, including to a transparent re-counting process, if requested by candidates.
The right to peaceful association and demonstration should be safeguarded, while violence needs to be avoided at all times. We deplore the loss of human lives and our thoughts are with the families of the victims. It is imperative that all sides act responsibly and avoid actions that further fuel tensions.
The EU Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) will continue its work to closely observe the next stages of the elections, until the process is concluded, including possible appeals.
Declaration of the OAS General Secretariat
regarding the Presidential Elections in Honduras
issued in Washington, December 6, 2017
The Electoral Observation Mission (EOM) of the Organization of American States (OAS) to the elections in Honduras has informed the OAS General Secretariat about the lack of guarantees and transparency, as well as the accumulation of irregularities, mistakes and systemic problems that have surrounded this electoral process during the pre-electoral phase, election day, and the post-electoral phase, that as a corollary do not allow the Mission to have certainty about the results.
Moreover, it is clear that it is not possible, without an exhaustive and meticulous process of verification that determines the existence or not of an electoral fraud — as has been denounced by the opposition — to restore the confidence of the population in the process.
This lack of trust and polarization have generated unsustainable incidents of violence. The public calls for mutiny and military insurrection made in the post-electoral context are are irresponsible and incompatible with democracy.
With equal force, the OAS General Secretariat deplores the reckless calls for violence and the use of assault rifles in private hands by party leaders.
The OAS General Secretariat also condemns the deaths that have taken place and demands their immediate investigation, while also expressing its condolences and expressing solidarity with the families of the victims.
The suspension of the constitutional rights related to the Decree of December 1, 2017 issued by the Government of Honduras has been justified according to the Constitution cited in the decree considered in extreme situations, such as “the invasion of the national territory, the serious disturbance of the peace, an epidemic, or any other general calamity.” Therefore the OAS General Secretariat considers disproportionate the application of these measures in the face of demonstrations that took place following the already denounced irregularities of the electoral act carried out on November 26, 2017 and requests the immediate lifting of these measures.
The electoral process is the ultimate expression of the popular will, and democracy cannot and should not be undermined by serious irregularities, repression and deaths.
It is imperative that sufficient guarantees be given so that violence can be stopped immediately.
Looking forward, the report of the EOM has demanded a series of actions to reestablish trust, generate certainty and provide guarantees.
Therefore, we endorse the recommendations and conclusions contained in the preliminary report of the EOM. These conclusions have determined, based on technical criteria derived from international standards, the stages that must be completed.
We will move forward with all the steps indicated in the report and provide the essential follow-up.
The presidential candidate Juan Orlando Hernández Alvarado has accepted the conclusions and recommendations of the EOM report, and has expressed his commitment to submit the results of the elections to international scrutiny with the accompaniment of international observers.
Unfortunately, despite the technical and scientific basis of the recommendations of the EOM, it has not been possible to reach a signed agreement.
The OAS General Secretariat reiterates that the electoral process in the Republic of Honduras has not concluded, as the full implementation of the following recommendations remain to be carried out:
A comparison of the 1,006 records/minutes subjected to special scrutiny with the originals received in order to ascertain whether they formed part of those that were transmitted on-line or those that were processed once they had arrived at INFOP.
Verification of the 5,174 TSE records that were not transmitted on the night of the election, along with a recount of the votes in the records showing inconsistencies.
Review of the participation in the vote in the departments of Lempira, Intibucá, and La Paz, checking 100% of the polling stations in each of those departments.
The establishment of a reasonable deadline for challenging findings. Due to the delays in both the regular and special tallies, the Mission urges the Supreme Electoral Tribunal to be flexible about receiving these challenges and in resolving them with all due procedural guarantees, one by one, after careful and duly substantiated analysis.
The publication of the lists of members of the polling stations in the departments of Atlántida, Colón, Cortés, Francisco Morazán, and Yoro.Verification of the soundness/integrity of the Integrated Electoral Vote Counting and Dissemination System (SIEDE) and its components.
If the existing irregularities prove to be of such an extent that it makes it impossible for the process to provide certainty and security in the recount, the Mission reserves the right to make any additional recommendations it deems pertinent on any aspect thereof, without ruling out the possibility of recommending a new call for elections with guarantees that they correct all the identified weaknesses that led to the serious irregularities detected.
The OAS General Secretariat will not abandon the Honduran people and reaffirms its complete commitment to contribute to resolving the differences surrounding the election. For this reason, the EOM remains in place to continue providing technical-political support.
The police rebel.
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Relations of the Government of Panama
issued in Panama, December 4, 2017
The Government of the Republic of Panama has closely followed the presidential elections in Honduras and is concerned about the unrest that has arisen.
Panama calls on the Supreme Electoral Tribunal to complete the vote count and guarantee the Honduran population a transparent process.
It also calls on the population and the political force to maintain calm and promote social peace and tranquility in the country.
Protester at the University of Panama.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
A seven-year-old Palestinian boy throws stones at an Israeli tank. The photo is pseudonymous — the Arab who takes such a picture is subject to arrest, imprisonment, torture and having his or her family’s home demolished. In the event that a soldier oversteps these limits and kills the photographer, the odds are good that Israel’s legal system will leave the act unpunished.
Historic day: the end of American mediation in the Middle East
The Trump speech will not change the reality of Jerusalem. West Jerusalem will remain an Israeli city, where Israel’s government is located since 1949. East Jerusalem will remain an occupied Palestinian city, which is not and cannot be a part of Israel. Believers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam will continue clinging to their holy sites in Jerusalem.
Nevertheless, this is a historic day. In the person of President Donald Trump, the United States today officially, ceremoniously and with a bang abdicated its role as the mediator between Israel and the Arabs.
This mediating role had endured for more than forty years. Henry Kissinger created it with his “shuttle diplomacy” of the 1970s. All later Presidents and Secretaries of State strove to maintain it. All later Presidents and Secretaries of State were jealous of the American monopoly over Middle East mediation, even to forcibly grabbing hold of negotiations processes started without them — between Israel and Egypt in 1978, between Israel and the Palestinians in 1993. Until Donald Trump came along and in typical Trumpian style decided to spectacularly smash up this mediation role.
In fact, the US mediation role had always been a curious anomaly. In no commercial dispute would it be conceivable to have as arbiter the business partner of one of the contending parties. But in the world of Middle East diplomacy, it was accepted almost without question that the role of impartial honest broker be given to Israel’s closest ally, the provider of billions in financial aid and state of the art weapons systems and an almost automatic veto in the UN Security Council.
Obama and Kerry did make some belated and half-hearted efforts to appear impartial. But Trump decided to tear off America’s face any mask of impartiality and trample it underfoot.
What now? Well, for some time there will be no mediator in the Middle East, and hence no kind of Peace Process. But sooner or later, the vacuum is going to be filled. Who might fill it? One name which comes to mind is of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who had just shown himself able to play a highly effective and energetic — though quite brutal — role in Syria. Russia has long-standing cordial relations with the Palestinians, in the past decade Putin has built up intensive relations with Netanyahu as well. Taking up the abandoned mediation role between Israel and the Palestinians would fit nicely within Putin’s project of restoring Russia’s global power.
Then, the European Union — even though beset by many crises — might take up a more assertive role in the Middle East. Especially France, which has traditionally tended to take its own independent initiatives. Or even China, which not so long ago appointed its own Middle East representative.
Altogether, there might eventually emerge a mediator or mediators who would be a bit more impartial than we had so far. And if so, there might be an ironical reason to feel grateful to Donald Trump.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
Aves de Panamá / Birds of Panama El Martín Pescador Grande / The Ringed Kingfisher
foto y nota por Kermit Nourse / photo and note by Kermit Nourse
This is Panama’s Ringed Kingfisher, the largest of all of the kingfishers, reaching a length of 15.5 to 17 inches. They are water birds found along lakes and rivers whose main diet is mostly fish. They do no not spearfish with their sharp beaks, but rather use them for burrowing holes in which they live. I had over a year of failed attempts at trying to photograph this spectacular bird.
Esto es el Martín Pescador Grande, el más grande de todos los martines pescadores en Panamá, que alcanza una longitud de 15.5 a 17 pulgadas. Son aves acuáticas encontradas a lo largo de lagos y ríos cuya dieta principal es generalmente el pescado. No hacen no el pescado de la lanza con sus picos agudos, pero mejor dicho los usan para cavar agujeros en los cuales viven. Tenía más de un año de tentativas fracasadas en la tentativa de fotografiar esta ave espectacular.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information. Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web.
Corporate lawyer, former minister of canal affairs, party
Martinelli’s mouthpiece rants.
