Chilean police are investigating the death of 27-year-old police officer, Cristián Martínez Badilla, after he was shot on the 1973 Coup Anniversary on Tuesday.

Badilla was shot while trying to prevent the looting of a supermarket in the suburb of Quilicura, Santiago.

President Sebastián Piñera said his government will do all it can to identify those responsible for the killing of Martinez, the father of a 3-week-old baby.

The officer died “defending our lives, our security, our tranquility,” said Piñera.

A suspect has been taken into custody and a .83 caliber gun revolver was recovered but the person detained denies responsibility for the killing. The fatal bullet entered through an opening in the officer’s protective vest.

The death of Badilla came alongside what turned out to be an extremely violent end to the 11th September ceremonies that mark the 1973 coup d’état in which Gen. Augusto Pinochet took power from former President Salvador Allende.

In total, one officer died, 26 people were wounded, and 255 people arrested, of which 83 are legally considered children.

Five public buses were set on fire and used as barricades against police by masked demonstrators in the streets of Chile’s capital city. More than 400 other public transport vehicles retained broken windows and other damage forcing the transportation agency to cancel service for more than a million people.

More than 58,000 homes were also left in the dark after hooded protestors threw chains onto power lines knocking out electricity in at least 12 of Santiago’s 35 districts. Looting was also a huge problem throughout the city.

Deputy Interior Minister Rodrigo Ubilla said in a press statement that the number of arrests had declined from previous years but violence has intensified, with more firearms being used than ever before. There was “a greater number of gunshots, of weapons, and we’re also concerned about seeing a greater number of young people in the streets,” Ubilla said.

Fernando Lugo in the Government Palace watches images of his supporters on television on June 22. (Photo: Fernando Lugo Méndez)

In 2008, a bishop from the combative region of San Pedro, where important peasant struggles had been carried out, became president of Paraguay with the Patriotic Alliance for Change (APC). Aided by a strong division within the Partido Colorado -which had been in power for an uninterrupted period of 61 years, 35 of which were under Stroessner’s dictatorship- Fernando Lugo managed to win the elections and open up a new chapter in the country’s history.

But as soon as he made the decision to get involved in politics, encouraged by the support of citizens and social movements alike, especially the peasants, the ‘bishop of the poor’ encountered a dilemma: whether to run with his small party Tekojojá (‘Equality’, in indigenous guaraní language) and lose, or whether to try and win by making an alliance with the Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico (PLRA), a traditional political force clandestinely founded by Domingo Laíno in 1978 as opposition to Stroessner’s dictatorship, which re-grouped some sectors from the old Liberal Party that had governed Paraguay between 1904-1936.

The ghost of what had happened in Mexico in 2006, when Andrés Manuel López Obrador denounced being victim of election fraud, seemed familiar enough in Paraguay. So Lugo decided to side with the liberals -capable of providing votes, as well as making sure they were counted. He chose to seize the opportunity, maybe the only one he would have, of a Partido Colorado deeply divided between Blanca Ovelar, Nicanor Duarte Frutos’ candidate, and Luis Alberto Castiglioni, considered ‘the (US) embassy’s candidate’. The pro-Stroessner tripod made up of the government, armed forces, and the Partido Colorado had already started to crumble after the fall of the dictator.

Federico Franco greets Fernando Lugo (courtesy of Fernando Lugo Mendez)

And so, Lugo won. But at the cost of having a liberal vice-president -Federico Franco, who would later distance himself from the president in the midst of a division within the PLRA- and an almost non-existent parliamentary representation. Despite the fact that there had been important protests since Stroessner’s fall in 1989 (such as the one in 2006, against Duarte Frutos’ re-election attempts), Paraguay was far from being like Ecuador, where president Rafael Correa had enough social support to close down Congress and call for a Constitutional Assembly, or Bolivia, where Evo Morales has a massive indigenous-popular support base with important mobilisation capabilities.

Lugo also inherited a country impregnated by the colorados‘ political culture, where the fight for the state apparatus is ruthless, as made evident by the murder of former vice-president Luis María Argaña in 1999 -shortly before the resignation of president Raúl Cubas, who was at the verge of being impeached. An important character at the time was the right-wing, populist military officer Lino Oviedo, who was once protected by former Argentine president Carlos Menem, and who nowadays leads the Ethical Citizens National Union (also known as Ethical Colorados Union), which took part in the parliamentary coup.

Lugo’s presidency was based, at least at the beginning, in the politics of the ‘poncho juru‘ (in the centre, like the opening in a poncho). But even though he did not make consistent reforms, his government was -despite its contradictions- an interlocutor for the peasants and, for the first time, left-wing politicians were awarded some of the ministries. This caused enough concern within the landowners to have the spokesman for the ‘brasiguayos‘ -Brazilian-born land owners and their descendants- Aurio Fighetto, declare shortly after the coup that “the ‘carperos‘ (landless peasants who were occupying farms) were in the [government] Palace.” Such was the argument he was willing to use to ask Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff to recognise the new government. His colleague and president of the Association of Christian Businessmen, Luis Fretes, said with brutal honesty: “I believe Franco is going to be much firmer in terms of respecting private property.”

The issue of land is key to understanding anything that happens in Paraguay (80% of fertile land is owned by 2% of landowners). So is a variety of illegal activities -drug trafficking, smuggling, kidnappings- linked to the state, which has been permeated by a host of different criminal organisations.

Paraguayan farmers and signs of violence. (courtesy of Sub.coop)

There is no longer a massive exploitation of tannin (red quebracho) which enslaved thousands of peasants, and the centre of Paraguay’s economic activity is not timber or yerba mate production anymore. But although these products have been partially replaced, the logic of an enclave economy has remained, in an equally perverse way, with the new star crop: soy.

Today, Paraguay is the world’s fourth largest soy exporter. The area used up by soy plantations went from one to three million hectares between 1997 and 2012. And the borders between legality and criminality are diffused. Which is why, in the north of the country, the term ‘narco-stockbreeders’ has been coined.

In the midst of its extreme weakness, Lugo had to face an untimely guerrilla movement, the Paraguayan People’s Army (EPP), apparently organised by ex-militants from the Free Country group (some of its members have been accused of being involved in the kidnapping and murdering of president Rául Cubas Grau’s daughter, Cecilia, in 2004) and whose links and aims are not very clear. With only a handful of members, the EPP carried out actions such as destroying machinery in a soy farm accused of polluting a whole town -Concepción-, attacking a military barracks in San Pedro (the region where Lugo used to be a bishop), setting off a bomb in the national court and -the most important one- the kidnapping of landowners Luis Alberto Lindstron and Fidel Zavala in 2009. The latter was forced to distribute beef amongst the poor, ‘courtesy of the EPP’, and pay ransom before being released from the 3-month captivity. Leader Carmen Villalba, from prison, claimed responsibility for all these actions. Meanwhile, some members of the opposition accused Lugo of being an accomplice to the EPP -and even of being a member of it!

As all this was happening, it started to surface that the president had various illegitimate children (despite the fact that, as a bishop, he was supposed to be celibate) and he was victim of a cancer that threatened his life.

Fernando Lugo in a recent press conference after his impeachment. (Photography by Fernando Lugo Mendez)

Within that context, Lugo’s political survival seemed like a miracle: as well as Congress, he had the justice system, a stronghold of the old, corrupt politics, against him; the fraudulent bourgeoisie, which, despite continuing with business as usual, mistrusted the president’s left-wing entourage; the mass media, who shamelessly conspired in favour of the impeachment as they waved around the ‘Hugo Chávez ghost’; and his own vice-president. In this situation, only the divisions within the right and the popular mobilisation (or rather, the threat of it) managed to keep the former bishop in power.

The problems were not only a product of the conservative parties’ conspiracy, but also of the lack of internal cohesion within the government. In cabinet, there were “from obedient disciples of neoliberalism in finance, to apprentices of repressors in Interior, to great ignorants in agriculture, or conservative ex-activists in the social ministries. (Thus) what happened was bound to happen: uncertainty first, and disappointment later,” writes the recently deceased sociologist Tomás Palau on his book ‘Lugo’s Government: Legacy, Administration, and Challenges’. Despite all this, he highlights the creation of the Executive Coordination for Agrarian Reform and the writing of a report from the Truth and Justice Commission and the National Institute of Rural Development and Land about illegally-acquired land, some 8-million hectares of it, as well as the beginning of a reform aiming to guarantee free and universal healthcare.

The key was perhaps what former minister Hugo Richer highlighted some time ago: “Lugo’s government can’t be called left-wing, but thanks to him the left managed to grow and to gain an amount of political influence that it had never had throughout Paraguayan history.” This may not seem much in countries like Bolivia, Venezuela, or Ecuador, but it is enough to upset the elites in a country “watched over” by the huge statue of Chinese anti-communist leader Chiang Kai-Shek. And it is impossible to understand the recent conflicts without the ‘anti-communist’ key, very much a part of the Paraguayan political culture thanks to the strong predominance of the colorados, crucial in holding up Stroessner in power for 35 years.

Fernando Lugo Méndez meeting with political representatives from 'Frente Guasu' and the 'PLRA' (Photo courtesy of Fernando Lugo Méndez)

In the last few years, various groups started up the Frente Guasú (‘large’ in guaraní), which brought together centre-left and left-wing political parties, from social democrats to marxists, as a -sometimes critical- support base for the government.

But -as was already evident in 2009- the impeachment was around the corner, waiting for the right opportunity. In the last few days, it was revealed that the US embassy in Asunción had warned back in 2009 about a plan to remove Lugo as soon as he “made a mistake”, and that the conspiracy was led by Lino Oviedo and Duarte Frutos to put Franco in charge (cable from 28th March 2009, leaked by Wikileaks). Despite the affinity of the US with the new president, the parliamentary coup seems to be more related to internal causes -and the brutal power disputes- than to the traditional ‘CIA coup’.

The ‘mistake’ was the recent massacre of peasants and policemen due to a land-owning conflict in Curuguaty and the later appointment of former colorado prosecutor Rubén Candia Amarilla as Interior Minister. This appointment did not go down well with the left and deepened the liberal divide, whilst activating the internal struggles within the Partido Colorado, which rejected it.

Lugo accused Horacio Cartes, an important colorado leader, of being behind the coup. Cartes is a stockbreeder who entered politics not too long ago, but already has a high chance of becoming president of Paraguay in 2013. Apparently, Cartes thought his candidacy would be threatened by an alleged agreement between Lugo and his party’s president, Lilian Samaniego, who was once Cartes’ ally and is now an internal rival. According to Cartes’ supporters, Lugo would have plotted to enter into an alliance with Samaniego to lend her his support from government, ahead of next year’s presidential elections. This led them to support the former president’s removal.

As the correspondent for La Nación newspaper from Buenos Aires wrote, the three pillars holding Franco are the church (which immediately blessed the new president), Congress, and the business community, especially that related to the agricultural industry. He ‘forgot’, however, to mention the media. ABC Color, owned by the Zucolillo family, was an active part of the anti-Lugo conspiracy and there was not a single day since 2008 in which they did not warn about the ‘Chavista threat’. Now, the newspapers are publishing ‘nationalist’ columns which see the reactions of Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay as a new Triple Alliance, like the one that massacred Paraguayans in the 19th century. And they claim that the “Paraguayan race” shall overcome.

With Franco, the liberals reached power for the first time in 76 years, and can now use the state resources until the 2013 elections to campaign and improve their chances. There is no doubt that, as political scientist Marcello Lachi points out, “politics here are not refined.” And controlling the state (and its resources, such as employment) is key to winning elections. This explains the urgency with which they acted, only a few months before an election in which Lugo could not be re-elected. Historical PLRA leader Domingo Laíno, however, has strongly condemned the coup and supports Lugo.

The colorados, meanwhile, are excited at the prospect of returning to power, like the PRI in Mexico, counting on the discredit the liberals will suffer now that they are governing on their own. They have so far managed to break up the APC, and the polls look promising for next year’s election. “If the left and the liberals go their separate ways in the election, the colorados will win with at least 35% of the vote,” says Lachi. There is no second round in Paraguay.

Lugo -whose first reaction was to leave office after being impeached and who did not call for social mobilisation- has regained the initiative and announced that he will go around the country garnering support, denounced the government as “fake”, and received important shows of support from around the region. However, it is unclear whether he is really looking to lead the resistance to an already settled government, or to begin his campaign to become a senator in 2013.

Translated by: Celina Andreassi.

International organizations that make up the Mission of International Verification presented a preliminary report on the human rights violations in Bajo Aguán, in the north of Honduras.  The investigation took place over three months.

The organizations presented the report, called “Honduras: Human Rights Violations in Bajo Aguán,” before the European Parliament.

The text speaks to the state of Human Rights in Honduras after the coup d’état in 2009, as well as the agricultural situation in Bajo Aguán.

The report points to the death of 25 people in conflicts over the land that occurred between January 2010 and Februrary 2011. It also revealed that there are not orders for the detention of those responsible for the crimes.

The document also points out that the Honduran State did not carry out the giving over of lands from the Military Regional Training Center (CREM) to the Aguán Workers Movement (MCA). It also failed to transfer 11 thousand hectares promised to the cooperatives of the Unified Workers Movement of Aguán (MUCA).

For these reasons, the Verification Mission laid out recommendations to the European Parliament of steps that the Honduran authorities should take, among others, the investigation and punishment of all the crimes.

The international delegation also protested against the reincorporation of Honduras in to the Organization of American States (OEA).

This story is courtesy of Agensia Pulsar.

The representative of the People’s National Front, Rafael Alegría, said that “there can be no forgetting or pardon” for the crimes of the 2009 coup, after the reinstatement of Honduras to the OEA.

The representative told Telesur, “There should have already been trials aimed at condemning the perpetrators of the coup and those who committed crimes against humanity. “

The Organization of American States (OEA) decided on Wednesday to authorize the reentry of Honduras to the block.

In this sense, Alegría welcomed that the talks in the OEA demanded compliance with the Agreement for national reconciliation and consolidation of democracy.

This agreement allowed the return of Manuel Zelaya of Honduras and the country’s readmission to the OEA.

This agreement also opened the door to questions about a Constituent Assembly. In addition, it authorized the Front to establish itself as a political force.

Ecuador opposed the return of Honduras to the OEA. It said that Honduras not yet punished the perpetrators of the coup d’etat of 2009.

Former President Manuel Zelaya said all the victims of the coup have the right to demand justice.

Story courtesy of Agencia Púlsar, the news agency of AMARC-ALC.

Photo by Foto Presidencia/Luis Echeverría

Porfirio Lobo greets officials in the Presidential Palace in Tegucigalpa, Honduras

A year after the coup d’état that removed Honduran president Manuel Zelaya from office, there are two forceful and opposing currents pulsing through Honduran society. The first is uplifting and promising: long-underrepresented groups who influenced Zelaya to begin a process towards constitutional reform, the most immediate cause of the coup, have consolidated and invigorated their demand for change. The second current conjures frightening images of a not-so-distant past in Latin America: the new government has responded with violent repression of opposition voices and has boldly carried on its mission to return Honduras, quite literally, to business as usual.

So far, the government has arrogantly dismissed the opposition, but the shouts of disapproval are growing ever louder. After months of political deadlock, during which Zelaya sneaked back into the country but remained under constant siege in the Brazilian embassy, the de facto government proceeded with the scheduled presidential elections in November. A wealthy rancher, Porfirio Lobo, won an election that was banned by virtually every major international observing body, and which the most popular opposition candidates boycotted.

On 26th January, the day before Lobo was inaugurated, the Supreme Court cleared six military commanders, including two graduates of the infamous School of the Americas, of charges related to their forceful removal of Zelaya. The Congress handed out amnesty to both those involved in the coup and Zelaya, who had previously been charged with treason. Dispute ended, problems solved—not quite.

The coup was carried out on 28th June, the day that Zelaya had planned to administer a non-binding referendum, or “public consultation”, on whether to have a vote on electing an assembly to rewrite the constitution—which would have then also been subject to a vote by the entire electorate. The current constitution, of which many liberties were suspended by the de facto government, was created under a previous military government in 1982.

Photo by Yamil Gonzales

On June 29, 2009, people took to the streets of Tegucigalpa to protest the prior day’s coup.

The day following the coup, 29th June, a diverse collection of organizations integrated to form the National Front of Popular Resistance (FNRP). Not only were they united in opposing the de facto government, but even more so by their resilience to continue the momentum towards recasting the constitution. The FNRP is composed of labour unions, students, teachers, campesion organizations, LGBT groups, women’s rights groups, intellectuals, indigenous groups and afro-Hondurans. Some of these groups had been influential in pushing Zelaya to call for the vote on the constituent assembly, but others were finding their political voices for the first time.

Berta Oliva, the head of one of the oldest and most respected human rights groups in Honduras, the Committee for the Families of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras (COFADEH), is enthusiastic about the political awakening: “This was a phenomenon never before seen in Honduras, the people took on an impressive awareness, they became passionate about their right to participate, their right to decide.”

The FNRP has been organizing regular non-violent protests and numerous marches of over 500,000 people. While the political drama surrounding Zelaya’s return and reinstatement unfolded they remained focused on the goal of convoking a national constitutional assembly. In pursuing this aim, they have put together a petition and started a massive signature gathering campaign. They are expecting to collect at least 2 million signatures, more than half of the adult population of the country, and twice as many votes for Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo received in the questionable November presidential vote.

Photo by Matthew Hogg

A typical house from a village, Juticalpa, Honduras, showing simple construction.

Above all else, the members of the FNRP are demanding a more representative and just constitution. The country is one of the poorest in Latin America. The World Bank’s 2004 Development Indicators Report lists 50.7% of the population as living under the poverty line. The estimates are said to be even higher today, especially for those living in extreme poverty. As in many countries with such rampant poverty, power in Honduras is incredibly centralized. The same World Bank report states that 59.4% of the country’s total income is earned by the richest 20% of the population. The poorest 20% earn just 2.2%.

Zelaya, from the elite ruling-class himself, had taken an unexpected turn towards ameliorating this inequality. In January of 2009, in a move that infuriated powerful business interests, he raised the minimum wage 60%. The wage had not been adjusted to current costs of living in years, and though the increase was dramatic—his aids warned him that it would likely cost him his job—according to the government’s calculations, the increased wage still barely covered 90% of basic food needs and only a third of living expenses such as rent, transportation and medical care.

The change was too much for the Honduran elites to stomach. Armando Licona, a representative of the university student chapter of the FNRP, explains, “unfortunately, our country is controlled by the private business interests of the dominant groups in power who do not want changes that benefit the Honduran people.”

These private business interests, as Licona pointed out, enjoy an excessive amount of influence over the governmental institutions of Honduras: the congress, the courts and the military. In describing the courts, who authorized the congress’s order for Zelaya’s removal, the 2008 US State Department’s Human Rights Report on Honduras said: “Although the constitution and the law provide for an independent judiciary, the judicial system was poorly funded and staffed, inadequately equipped, often ineffective, and subject to patronage, corruption, and political influence.”

Photo by Sandra Cuffe

Honduras riot police with gas masks and tear gas guns at the ready for crowd control.

Over the last year, these powerful forces have demonstrated their willingness to employ state terror in order to secure their grip on power in Honduras. The FNRP’s astute decision to adopt a non-violent opposition has highlighted the new government’s retrograde use of violent suppression. Honduran human rights groups have been vigilantly documenting the abuses carried out by authorities, including the military, police and newly formed paramilitary groups.

Peaceful demonstrations are bombarded with suffocating volumes of tear gas. Authorities regularly enter crowds of demonstrators and beat them with batons. COFADEH reports that more than 3,000 people have been illegally detained since the coup—most have been beaten, tortured and scores of women have been raped. The group reports that at least forty-one Hondurans associated with the resistance have been killed.

Both Amnesty International and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), a division of the Organization of American States (OAS), have released strong condemnatory reports confirming the human rights violations under the de facto government. The IACHR lists a catalogue of offences, including “deaths, arbitrary declaration of states of emergency, suppression of public demonstrations through disproportionate use of force, criminalization of public protest, arbitrary detentions of thousands of persons, cruel inhuman and degrading treatment and grossly inadequate conditions of detention, militarization of Honduran territory, a surge in the incidents of racial discrimination, violations of women’s rights, serious and arbitrary restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, and grave violations of political rights.”

Journalists critical of the coup have been intensely targeted. During the first few days following the coup, almost all radio and tv transmissions were blocked, except for a small handful that played pro-coup propaganda around the clock. Of the dissenting voices, Radio Globo in the capital, Tegucigalpa, and Radio Progresso in the north have been particularly instrumental in reporting on abuses by the authorities and providing organizing platforms for the FNRP.

Photo by Todd

In September, Radio Globo was shut down by the de facto government, but it has carried on with it’s programming online, running out of a private residence. Radio Progresso director Padre Melo says that the station receives bomb threats almost everyday.

During March and April, a string of dissident journalists were murdered—seven in all. Most were killed in the same way: while driving, they were ambushed and sprayed with upwards of 30 bullets. Unsurprisingly, there have been no arrests in any of the murder investigations.

Other journalists have seen their family members killed or disappeared. The Lobo administration has tried to deflect attention from the violence against journalists, explaining it as part of the day-to-day crime of Honduras, which even before the coup had one of the hemisphere’s highest murder rates.

The government’s refusal to acknowledge the political nature of the violence against journalists is part of their weak, or unconcerned, effort to pull a mask of normalcy over the political upheaval in the country. To an extent, this has been a successful policy. After Lobo’s election the US, by far Honduras’s biggest trade partner, restored full military and humanitarian aid.

While a handful of governments followed the US lead, including some Central American neighbours and the EU, many have refused to restore relations with Honduras. The OAS has been particularly firm in it’s refusal to acknowledge the Lobo administration despite the US State Department’s wishes. In June, at the OAS General Assembly meeting, Hilary Clinton urged the organization to readmit Honduras, stating that the Lobo administration had, “shown a strong commitment to democracy and order.”

Part of the Lobo administration’s “strong commitment to democracy” has been the establishment of a Truth Commission, which was initially called for as part of the failed  reconciliation process between Zelaya and the de facto government. Truth commissions have been used to ease the transition following repressive regimes in such countries as El Salvador, Argentina and South Africa—but only after the regime had stepped down and the worst of the violence had ended.

“A truth commission can help to strengthen a transition to democracy if its mandate, operation and methodology respect the victims whose rights were violated,” said International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) president David Tolbert. “Unfortunately, in Honduras the decision to establish the commission seems to have more to do with a hasty desire to turn the page, rather than clarifying last year’s disruption of democracy and the serious crimes that took place.”

Berta Oliva said that neither COFADEH nor any of the other major human rights groups in Honduras had yet to be contacted regarding the Lobo administration’s truth commission.  But Instead of sitting around waiting for an invitation to participate in the government’s commission, COFADEH and five other leading human rights groups, who have joined forces as the Platform for Human Rights, have formed their own “True Truth Commission”. The commission, which will include two Nobel Peace Prize winners: Adolfo Pérez Esquivel of Argentina, and Rigoberta Menchú of Guatemala, is scheduled to begin work on 28th June, the year anniversary of the coup, and complete a report a year later.

The Platform’s “True Truth Commission” along with the FNRP’s continuing demonstrations will cause significant obstacles to the government’s efforts to neatly move on from the democratic breakdown of a year ago. Looking ahead, the oppositional movements are keeping the initial goal of constitutional reform constantly in sight. Berta Oliva said of the work still to be done: “I believe that when there has been such a break of constitutional order as there has been in Honduras, the next step is to have a new constitution for the republic–a new social contract. There must be a constituent assembly to fairly allow all sectors to converge: right, left and center.”

De facto Honduran President Roberto Micheletti announced on Friday morning he is ready to sign a pact to resolve the political crisis in the Central American nation. This could mean the return of elected head of state Manuel Zelaya, five months after he was ousted from power in a military-backed coup.

Micheletti announced that the deal would include the creation of a power-sharing government, and recognition from both sides of the legitimacy of November’s upcoming presidential elections. The move has the full support of Zelaya, who called it a “triumph for Honduran democracy” and that he was optimistic of regaining his presidential powers, up until the end of his term in January.

Previously both sides in Honduras had been in deadlock, with neither wishing to compromise their position in ongoing negotiations. The de facto government had resisted pressure from myriad international organisations to restore Zelaya to the presidency, a step that was seen as crucial if any type of accord was to be reached.

Honduras has been in a state of political crisis since 28^th June this year, when Zelaya was forced out of the country at gunpoint, and succeeded by a military-backed “interim” government under the charge of Micheletti. He had planned to hold a non-binding consultation on extending the number of terms a president can serve; currently the constitution dictates leaders can only serve one term.

The coup has been condemned by a majority of international organisations, including the UN, the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the EU. Since Zelaya’s removal Honduras, especially in and around the capital Tegucigalpa has been plagued by street fighting and civil unrest, with demonstrations held by citizens loyal to the elected president being violently broken up by security forces.

The situation was also complicated by the covert return on 28^th September of Zelaya to the the Brazilian Embassy, which provoked violent clashes between pro-Zelaya supporters and military forces. Those inside the embassy on the other hand complained of almost-siege like conditions, with difficulties attaining basic elements such as food and toiletries.

The move does not necessarily mean the end to the political crisis. The deal and Zelaya’s return will still have to be approved in a vote by Congress, who had voted in June to remove him after judges rejected his request for the consultation. It is however being treated as a major breakthrough in a situation widely believed to be at a stalemate. U.S Secretary of State Hilary Clinton led the praise for the agreement, proclaiming it as a victory for democracy in Latin America: “This is a big step forward for the Inter-American system and its commitment to democracy,” she said when asked to comment in Islamabad, Pakistan.