U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

55–517PDF 2010

NEXT STEPS FOR HONDURAS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 18, 2010

Serial No. 111–94

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

VACANT 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JASON STEINBAUM, Subcommittee Staff Director 

ERIC JACOBSTEIN, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

JULIE SCHOENTHALER, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Craig A. Kelly, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau 

of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State (Former U.S. 

Ambassador to Chile) ........................................................................................... 18

Ms. Vicki Gass, Senior Associate for Rights and Development, Washington 

Office on Latin America (WOLA) ........................................................................ 40

The Honorable Cresencio ‘‘Cris’’ Arcos (Former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for International Affairs) (Former U.S. Ambassador to Honduras) .................................................................................................................... 52

His Excellency Kevin Casas-Zamora, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy and Latin 

America Initiative, The Brookings Institution (Former Minister of National 

Planning and Economic Policy and Second Vice President of Costa Rica) ...... 60

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere: 

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 4

The Honorable Connie Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida: Prepared statement ........................................................................... 8

The Honorable Craig A. Kelly: Prepared statement ............................................. 20

Ms. Vicki Gass: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 43

The Honorable Cresencio ‘‘Cris’’ Arcos: Prepared statement ............................... 54

His Excellency Kevin Casas-Zamora: Prepared statement .................................. 63

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 82

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 83

The Honorable Connie Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida: Statement of Lanny J. Davis, Attorney ........................................... 84

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Letter dated March 17, 2010, to the Honorable 

Hugo Llorens, U.S. Ambassador to Honduras ................................................... 86

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Letter dated March 18, 2010, from the Honorable Hugo Llorens ................................................................................................ 88

The Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California: Register of Politically Motivated Violent Deaths of Individuals, June 2009 to February 2010 ...................................................................... 90

The Honorable Barbara Lee: Press Release, ‘‘IACHR Deplores Murders, 

Kidnappings, and Attacks in Honduras’’ ............................................................ 94

The Honorable Barbara Lee: Letter dated March 3, 2010, to the Attorney 

General of Honduras Urging Investigations into Attacks on Coup Opponents ...................................................................................................................... 96

The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana: Report dated February 21, 2008, from the Library of Congress 

on the Laws of Honduras .................................................................................... 98

The Honorable Dan Burton: USTR Annual NTE Report 2006—Honduras ........ 104

The Honorable Dan Burton: USTR Annual NTE Report 2007—Honduras ........ 105

The Honorable Dan Burton: Letter dated September 23, 2004, from Nelson 

Parks, Deputy Director for Production and Consumption, Secretary of Industry and Commerce, Republic of Honduras and Cement Investigation 

Report .................................................................................................................... 106

Page

IV

The Honorable Dan Burton: Inter-agency Memo Regarding Illegal Practices 

Against CEMAR ................................................................................................... 111

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Criminal Complaint against Acts of Corruption ........................................................................................................................ 113

The Honorable Dan Burton: Honduras Attorney General Position on CEMAR 

Bankruptcy ........................................................................................................... 115

The Honorable Dan Burton: Letter dated July 14, 2008, from the Honorable 

Larry L. Palmer ................................................................................................... 122

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Letter dated January 6, 2009, from Stuart 

E. Eizenstat, Covington & Burling LLP ............................................................. 124

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Letter dated April 28, 2009, from Oscar M. 

Cerna regarding State Department Response to Congressional Letter .......... 129

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Letter dated June 19, 2009, to the Honorable 

Hillary Clinton, United States Department of State, from Members of Congress ...................................................................................................................... 131

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Letter from Assistant Secretary Richard R. 

Verma, United States Department of State, in response to June 19 letter 

from Members of Congress .................................................................................. 138

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Letter dated January 11, 2010, to the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a 

Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan and Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary ................................................................................ 140

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Letter dated March 17, 2010, to the Honorable 

Hillary Rodham Clinton from the Honorable Charles B. Rangel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ....................................... 142

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Letter dated January 21, 2010, to the Honorable Lugo Llorens ................................................................................................. 144

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Letter received March 11, 2010, from Assistant 

Secretary Richard R. Verma to the Honorable Eliot L. Engel ......................... 146

The Honorable Dan Burton: Chronological Sequence of Events in Mr. Cortez 

Byrd vs. The Republic of Honduras .................................................................... 147

The Honorable Dan Burton: Letter dated September 18, 2008, from Cortez 

Byrd authorizing Mike Parker to make any and all decisions on his behalf .. 149

The Honorable Dan Burton: Letter dated May 13, 2009, from Cortez Byrd 

to the Honorable Gregg Harper, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Mississippi .............................................................................................. 150

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Final judgement of the United States District 

Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division ............................... 152

(1)

NEXT STEPS FOR HONDURAS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:56 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eliot L. Engel (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ENGEL. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on the 

Western Hemisphere will come to order. 

Last year, hemispheric affairs were dominated by the political 

crisis in Honduras. With today’s hearing, I encourage my colleagues and our witnesses to be forward-looking in our discussion 

of Honduras. 

While I am certainly not asking anyone to forget the events that 

took place last year, this hearing is not intended to be a review of 

2009. Suffice to say, and I have said this many times, that I believe 

that President Obama and Secretary Clinton’s management of U.S. 

policy toward Honduras last year was excellent. The United States 

stuck to core democratic principles, while at the same time, looking 

forward to a post-Micheletti Honduras. 

As we look ahead and focus on next steps for Honduras, I am 

pleased to see efforts by the Obama administration and several 

countries in the Americas to reach out to Honduran President Pepe 

Lobo. Working closely with President Lobo is crucial. At the same 

time, the inter-American community must ensure that steps are 

taken to implement key pieces of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose accord. 

I would like to briefly mention efforts that I believe should be 

taken both by the Honduran Government and the inter-American 

community in the coming months. 

First and foremost, a robust Truth Commission must be established to investigate events from last year. I was pleased by the selection of my friend, former Guatemalan Vice President Eduardo 

Stein, to head the Truth Commission. The Commission’s work must 

be done transparently, and it must ensure complete accountability. 

Secondly, we must continue to closely monitor the increasingly 

worrisome human rights situation in Honduras. Recent murders of 

Hondurans who were active in their resistance to the coup or related to activists must not go unnoticed. 

I am particularly troubled by the murders of three Honduran 

journalists this month. This past Sunday, Nahun Palacios, a journalist who covered demonstrations organized by the resistance of 

the coup and expressed his rejection of the removal of President 

2

Zelaya, was gunned down. I appreciate the strong statement of the 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and believe that 

those responsible for these heinous crimes must be held accountable. 

Last year was especially brutal for Honduras’ lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Attacks on that community escalated substantially, starting in June with 19 known murders of 

prominent members of the LGBT community. In addition, non-lethal attacks and other violent acts against LGBT individuals were 

reported on an alarming scale, and additional murders have gone 

unreported. 

The human rights defenders who have documented these abuses 

have been threatened, and the atmosphere of intimidation for 

members of the LGBT community remains high. 

Yesterday, I sent a letter with Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to U.S. Ambassador to Honduras 

Hugo Llorens, urging him to work with President Lobo to curb violence against the country’s LGBT community. I was delighted to do 

it jointly with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and she and I have done many, 

many things jointly over the past many years. 

Ambassador Llorens responded to our letter this morning, stating his commitment to raise these issues with the Lobo administration. I am inserting a copy of this letter and Ambassador Llorens’ 

response into the hearing record. 

Thirdly, I hope that we will act swiftly to re-admit Honduras to 

the Organization of American States. And I certainly believe that 

this must be done prior to the OAS General Assembly that will 

take place in Lima, Peru in June. 

Fourth, I have become increasingly concerned about the rule of 

law and the protection of the property rights of U.S. investors in 

Honduras. 

At the hearing we had last week, a number of us mentioned this. 

Mr. Burton was especially vocal, and I mentioned it, as well. We 

feel very strongly about this on both sides of the aisle. 

Several cases have been brought to my attention which paint a 

picture of an investment climate where assets of investors are not 

protected. In several cases, companies have been expropriated or 

driven out of business and U.S. owners never compensated. 

I present three examples. Firstly, I cite the case of the CEMAR 

cement company. In this instance, the Honduran military and Honduran cement manufacturers allegedly conspired to drive an American cement company out of business. The U.S. investor, Oscar 

Cerna, has ever since sought redress of this very legitimate claim. 

It is something that we cannot sweep under the rug. This is an 

American citizen, and we cannot allow our citizens to be treated 

this way. 

Secondly, I have learned about the case of Andreas Kafati, an 

American businessman whose partial ownership of a coffee business was taken through alleged manipulation of shares and the 

workings of a now-convicted Honduran judge. 

Also, there is the case of Cortez Byrd, an American citizen who 

won a $188 million judgment in a U.S. Federal court against a 

company which is 98 percent owned by the Government of Honduras. Honduras has not yet paid the legal judgment. 

3

If I were an American citizen or company looking at these and 

other cases, I would think twice before investing in Honduras. Honduras is a poor country which needs international investment if it 

is going to grow its economy and create jobs. But unless the assets 

of the United States and other international investors will be protected, scarce capital will go elsewhere. 

It is my hope that the new Government of Honduras will take 

a fresh look at these and other cases, and act without delay to 

make the investors whole while seeking to improve the investment 

climate for the future. 

Finally, these cases leave me with two open questions. First, 

while the State Department asserts that it assists American business, investors are reporting to me that advocacy by our embassy 

has been less than vigorous; and that is putting it generously. 

Secondly, resuming our foreign assistance to Honduras is important. But at the same time, the Honduran Government needs to respond to these serious cases of American citizens who are still 

seeking redress for their legitimate claims. I want to repeat that. 

Resuming our foreign assistance to Honduras is important. But at 

the same time, the Honduras Government needs to respond to 

these serious cases of American citizens who are still seeking redress for their legitimate claims. I will be asking Ambassador Kelly 

to address these points today. 

So in conclusion, I hope today’s hearing will help us to create a 

framework to move forward our relationship with Honduras in the 

coming year. We all look forward to hearing the testimony of our 

excellent Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western 

Hemisphere Affairs, Craig Kelly; as well as our private witnesses. 

I had the good fortune to visit Secretary Kelly at the State Department just a few days ago. We can rest comfortably knowing 

that his stewardship is at the helm, and I am delighted that he is 

here for us. 

I am now pleased to call on the ranking member for his opening 

statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Engel follows:]

4


55517e-1.eps
5


55517e-2.eps
6

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this important hearing today. Before I begin, I would like to recognize the former chair of the committee, Ben Gilman, for being here 

and for all your work you have done. 

I would also like to, before I begin my opening statement, take 

a moment to thank our witnesses who are here today, and also to 

inform the subcommittee that the Minority’s witness, Mr. Lanny 

Davis, was called out of town at the last minute, and is unavailable 

to be here with us today. I have a copy of testimony, and I ask 

unanimous consent to submit his testimony for the record. 

Mr. ENGEL. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot has changed in the 

past year in Honduras. We saw a Chavez croney and fellow 

thugacrat, Manuel Zelaya, try to change the Honduran Constitution to rule for life. We saw the Honduran Supreme Court and the 

Honduran Congress follow their Constitution in the rule of law by 

removing Zelaya from power. 

We saw the OAS, the U.N., and even the Obama administration 

come out on the wrong side of history and call Zelaya a coup. And 

to top it off, we saw our own State Department threaten Honduras 

to reinstate by withholding vital aid and revoking visas of Honduran officials. 

At this subcommittee last week, the Assistant Secretary referred 

to the situation in Honduras as a coup. His reasoning, President 

Zelaya was not given ‘‘the most elementary due process of law.’’ 

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

It is important to note that the Honduran military never took 

control over any of the levers of power. The Honduran Government 

institutions worked; and just so we have a clear understanding, in 

May 2009, President Zelaya worked with his friend, Hugo Chavez, 

and ordered a referendum to take place on November 29th, 2009 

that would remove Presidential term limits. The Honduran Constitution specifically prohibits this; and thus, Zelaya violated Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution. 

On May 29th, 2009, the Attorney General recommended that the 

Honduran courts hold that Zelaya’s referendum was illegal and unconstitutional. In late June, the Supreme Court ordered the Honduran forces not to provide support for the referendum. On June 

27th, in opposition to the Supreme Court order, Zelaya led a violent mob to seize and distribute the ballots for the referendum. On 

June 28th, the Supreme Court issued an arrest order for Zelaya 

and removed him from the presidency. On June 28th, the Honduran military acted on a warrant from the Honduran Supreme 

Court and removed Zelaya from power. He was later put on a plane 

out of the country for his own protection, as well as other security 

reasons. 

Later, the Honduran Congress, pursuant to the Honduran Constitution voted Micheletti as the President. Micheletti was constitutionally next in line for succession, and assumed the presidency on 

an interim basis. The military was never in control of Honduras. 

President Micheletti never interfered with the ongoing Presidential 

campaign, nor interfered with the previously planned November 

29th Presidential election. 

7

On November 29th, 2009, Hondurans voted in the Presidential 

election for Mr. Lobo, who won with 56 percent of the vote. On December 2nd, the Honduran Congress voted again, 111 to 14, to not 

reinstate ousted President Zelaya. The Supreme Court and the Attorney General also recommended this outcome. I think these are 

important facts that, as we talk about Honduras, that we keep in 

mind. 

And while some have criticized the Honduran military for ushering Zelaya out of the country, his removal saved lives and prevented dangerous riots and violence in the streets. What happened 

in Honduras was not a coup, and the administration needs to stop 

calling it that. 

Honduras did all we could ever ask of a country faced with assault on its democracy. I am very proud of the Honduras people for 

standing up to the thugacrats of the region; and I want to take a 

moment to thank President Micheletti for his commitment to freedom. 

When I traveled to Honduras last July, I had a chance to meet 

with President Micheletti. I have also spoken to him on the phone 

a number of times since my trip. I was struck by his dedication to 

the ideals of freedom and his commitment to the Honduran people. 

He was a proven leader in the face of great adversity, and he 

should be applauded for his leadership during this crisis. 

The people of Honduran did their part, and now we must do 

ours. I am encouraged by the actions taken thus far by Secretary 

Clinton and the State Department. We have restored much of the 

military, humanitarian and anti-drug tracking assistance to Honduras. 

The administration has also recognized the legitimacy of the November elections and President Lobo’s administration; but we must 

do more. Secretary Clinton has said earlier this month that the 

United States will be restoring aid to Honduras. This is welcome 

news. But it is my understanding that this aid will be restored incrementally. 

Any remaining withheld aid must be restored at once. The revoked visas of several Honduran officials, Supreme Court justices 

must be reinstated immediately by our State Department. And although I believe the OAS is dysfunctional, what message does it 

send to our allies in Latin America, if we will not even support normalizing relations with Honduras in the international community? 

It is no secret that some Latin American nations prefer to see 

Zelaya’s return to power, and they still wrongly believe that recognizing the new government will endorse the great work of President Micheletti. 

The United States must now stand with these thugocrats. Instead, we should help our ally in Central America. We must support their continued struggle for democracy and freedom. We must 

support the democratic institutions. We must support the American 

business men and women in Honduras, and ensure they have a 

free environment to conduct their business. 

Honduras is a strong partner and friend of the United States; 

and for the freedom, security and prosperity of the hemisphere, we 

must be a strong partner and friend to them. Thank you, and I 

8

look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mack follows:]


55517hh-1.eps
9


55517hh-2.eps
10


55517hh-3.eps
11


55517hh-4.eps
12

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Mack; and I, too, would like to extend a warm welcome to our former chairman of this committee, 

Ben Gilman, who sat in this seat many, many times. His portrait 

is—where is it, to the right. But he looks much better in person, 

actually. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for gracing us with your 

presence; Mr. Sires? 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing. The international recognition of Porfirio Lobo as President of 

Honduras offers a welcome contrast to the political distress and 

disorganization of Honduras last year. The political unrest illustrated how fragile democracy can be. In the aftermath of President 

Zelaya’s presidency, his ousting, and the political climate that existed under Micheletti, Honduran must recommit itself to demonstrating solid democracy practices in upholding human rights. 

But internal steps by President Lobo and the Honduran Government may not be enough. The Western Hemisphere community 

needs to work to support countries that are making positive steps 

toward democratic practices, and speak up when countries drift 

from these principles. 

Unfortunately, the hemisphere’s standards for human rights 

practices and democracy have been inconsistent. Honduras, with a 

newly recognized democratically elected President was excluded 

from the February of the Rio Group in Cancun; while the Cuban 

Regime was allowed to attend. Honduran continued to be isolated 

from the OAS, while Cuba is welcome. 

These signals are troubling and inconsistent with the OAS. It is 

clear that Western Hemisphere needs strong leadership and strong 

standards. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about how 

the United States and the international community can help Honduras to build its human rights and democracy record; thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would ask 

unanimous consent that my full statement be made a part of the 

record. 

Mr. ENGEL. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. SMITH. First, I want to associate myself strongly with the 

comments made by our ranking member, Mr. Mack, and your comments, as well. But I want to thank him for being so very clear 

about what happened last year. 

Many of us, and I remember when we held the hearing last year 

here, we heard from Members of the Supreme Court, Lanny Davis, 

and many others. It could not have been more clear that President 

Zelaya’s illegal moves to subvert the Constitution was selfish, 

petty, and was for his own personal advancement. It was to consolidate power in a Hugo Chavez style, which would have meant dictatorship, especially over time, for the people of Honduras. 

You know, the people rose up. The Congress, in an overwhelming 

vote, votes on all sides of the aisle; the Supreme Court, the Attorney General; and above all, the people, recognized that the real 

coup was coming from President Zelaya. And I want to commend 

Honduran people for demanding that human rights and especially 

democracy, and the rules of democracy and the rule of law be followed, and to be followed so very carefully. 

That said, I think we are also very happy that the crisis has 

transitioned, and the people have elected a new President and for 

13

the most part have accepted his leadership. Hopefully, Honduras is 

on a path now where the gains that have been gleaned the hard 

way can be consolidated so that country can take off economically, 

as well as every other way. 

I want to, like my colleagues before me, recognize the great work 

of Congressman Ben Gilman, our former chairman, who looks down 

upon us every day from that portrait. He was an outstanding chairman. I remember traveling with him to a number of trouble spots 

over the course of many years; having watched him shepherd one 

bill after another through in some very difficult times. 

I want to commend him for his outstanding leadership, especially 

in the realm of human rights and humanitarian law. Georgia, his 

wife, who is an ever present friend and advocate; thank you for 

gracing us with your presence today. 

Finally, I do want to raise the issue, like many of my colleagues 

are concerned, of an American property issue and appropriation 

issue in Honduras. The issue, many of us have raised it. 

I have sent letters over the course of many years. One of them 

that I sent, of all people, was to President Zelaya on July 17th, 

2008, which was not adequately or in any way really responded to. 

But it has to do with the discriminatory treatment of the U.S.-

owned Cementa America, or CEMAR, forcing it out of the Honduran cement market and causing the indirect ex-appropriation of 

CEMAR’s cement plant. 

The principal shareholder, Mr. Oscar Cerna, asserts—and he has 

many of us on both sides of the aisle look into this; and we joined 

with him because we think this is an illegality, as well as a close 

unfairness—that he has been subjected to illegal prosecution, improper confiscation of CEMAR’s assets without a warrant or court 

order. And I do hope that at long last, now that the issues in Honduras appear to be on the mend, that the State Department and 

all parties, especially the Government of Honduras, will look for—

speedy is not the right word, because it has certainly been many 

years in the making—but at this time forward, a very expeditious 

resolution of this ex-appropriation of those properties. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Smith; Mr. Faleomavaega? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I want to 

certainly commend you for your leadership and initiative in again 

holding this important hearing concerning Honduras. 

And I, too, would like to echo the sentiments of our colleagues, 

as well as you, Mr. Chairman, in personally welcoming a former 

chairman of this important committee, my good friend, Ben Gilman, and his better half, Mrs. Gilman, for being with us this afternoon. Thank you so much, and we deeply appreciate your presence. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to submit this for the 

record, a copy of the letter addressed to Secretary Clinton from 

Chairman John Conyers of the Judiciary Committee. I, along with 

90 other Members of Congress, submitted this letter to Secretary 

Clinton concerning this U.S. citizen, Mr. Oscar Cerna, who is an 

owner of a cement company, I believe, along with 14 other companies, Mr. Secretary. 

We really are very serious about the fact that our newly elected 

President of Honduran really needs to look at this. The rights of 

14

U.S. citizens and their investments that are made in Honduras 

should be taken seriously; and I sincerely hope, Mr. Secretary, that 

you will take that message. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Faleomavaega, without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you; and I just want to say, I was 

going to ask the question about the history of Mr. Zelaya. I deeply 

appreciated the gentleman from Florida, our ranking member, for 

his eloquent and most precise recount of the history of what happened to this question of whether or not Mr. Zelaya followed the 

spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution of the laws of Honduras. 

I will be asking some more questions concerning this, Secretary 

Kelly, and one other issue that I notice you may have not touched 

upon. I am sure it was probably just a little oversight, and that is 

the rights and the welfare of the indigenous people that make up 

Honduras. 

I say this, Mr. Secretary, not just in passing in terms of Honduras; but the absolute failure of Latin American countries in dealing with right, political and economic, as well as the social needs 

of the indigenous Indian populations in those countries. And I will 

be asking you more questions concerning that issue. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the time; 

and I yield back. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Faleomavaega; Mr. Burton? 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to 

congratulate Mr. Lobo for being elected President. I do not know 

if anybody is here from the Honduran Embassy, but if they are, I 

would like for them, as well as our Ambassador, to take a message 

back to President Lobo. 

That is that you just heard unanimously that the members of 

this subcommittee, and I believe most Members of Congress, believe that the previous administration should have taken positive 

action to deal with confiscated property and ex-appropriation of 

property by the government or other companies down there that 

were working with the Government of Honduras. 

One of those, I think, that the chairman mentioned, Mr. Cortez 

Byrd versus the Republic of Honduras, was a settlement that was 

reached in a court. It was not a settlement. It was a judgment 

reached in a court, which has never been honored. 

I realize Honduras is in a very difficult situation economically; 

and I recognize that President Lobo has serious problems that he 

is facing. I believe he is an honorable man, as do my colleagues, 

and we believe that he is going to do a good job. 

But I think one of the first things that he should do in his administration, and I hope you will convey this, Mr. Ambassador, as 

well as anyone else who might be here from the Honduran Embassy, that I think that these issues ought to be addressed. Obviously, they may not be able to come up with all the money that 

would be required immediately. But there ought to be some kind 

of a approach between the companies and the government. 

For them to continue to ignore these obligations only causes a 

boil to fester. More and more Members of Congress realize that this 

is something that is not going to go away. And since they now have 

15

what the people of Honduras believe is a truly fair and freely elected President and government that they have great respect for—I 

mean, he won overwhelmingly, 56 percent to 38 percent—the people are finally believing and feel that they have a very highly regarded government, and the United States should feel the same 

way. 

We are one of the major contributors to the economic problems 

that Honduras faces, and we understand that. But to leave these 

companies that have been mistreated hanging out to dry, Mr. Ambassador, just ain’t going to fly. Pardon my English. And so I really 

hope that the message goes back loud and clear that every member 

who has testified here today, Democrat and Republican, feel extremely strongly that the Government of Honduras needs to sit 

down with these people and work out some kind of a solution to 

the problems. 

You know, I understand the financial problems that they face. 

Even the former Attorney General of Honduras has said very clearly that CEMAR should be compensated. And the other case we 

talked about, Cortez Byrd versus Honduras, that was cited in a 

court of law. So both of these cases, by officials and by courts, have 

said very clearly that there ought to be a solution found, and there 

ought to be compensation paid. 

So I would urge you, Mr. Ambassador, to convey this message to 

the government. And like I said, if any other Honduran officials are 

here, I hope you will convey it, as well. Because we want this government to succeed. We want to work with the government to 

make sure it succeeds. But in order for that to happen and for us 

all to be on the same page, we need to confront these issues and 

get them solved. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much; and I appreciate 

the chairman and the ranking member for their comments. You 

guys are right on point. Ben, you never get any older, buddy. You 

look just as young as ever; and I think it is because of that good 

looking woman you married. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, he is smiling, so that must mean it is true. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Burton; Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me, too, welcome Chairman Gilman. I served on this committee with Chairman 

Gilman as chair. I just want to say how much I enjoyed serving 

with you, and that you were a very fair chair. It is good to see you 

again and congratulations. 

I want to welcome Deputy Assistant Secretary Kelly, as well as 

all of our panelists who will be joining us later. I want to draw 

your attention to, again, the troubling human rights situation in 

Honduras. 

According to the respected Committee for the Defense of Human 

Rights in Honduras, at least political activists and opponents have 

been murdered since the coup of June 28th of last year which, of 

course, included multiple assassinations since the inauguration of 

Mr. Lobo. 

I have a document here that sort of details the circumstances 

under which each person was killed. Also, according to a release 

from, I think it is a March 8 document the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and let me just quote from that. It says,

16

‘‘Observes with dismay that it appears that sons and daughters 

of leaders of the resistance front are being killed, kidnapped, 

attacked, and threatened as a strategy to silence to silence the 

activists.’’

As an example, they cite Claudia Brizuela, who is 36 years old. 

She was killed in her home; daughter of a union and community 

leader, who participates actively in the political opposition movement. Two unknown individuals came to her door; and when she 

opened it, she was shot and killed in front of her children, ages two 

and eight. 

There are many examples. According to Human Rights Watch, 

these cases are not investigated and those responsible brought to 

justice. It could generate really a chilling effect that would limit 

the basic exercise of basic political rights in Honduras. 

Also in your testimony, I hope you talk about the Truth Commission, and where the government is and where President Lobo is on 

that, and where these charges of human rights violations are going 

to be investigated within the context of this commission. 

I do not understand how such a body could carry on an internationally respected mandated when opposition leaders and family 

members continued to be targeted for harassment and violence. So 

I have these documents, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous consent to place them in the record. 

Mr. ENGEL. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Ms. Lee; Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I should start off with the important business, which is, of 

course, welcoming Chairman Ben Gilman back, which I join with 

my colleagues in offering accolades to a man who has done so 

much, not only for this committee, but for our country and for the 

cause of human freedom. 

It was an honor serving with him; and actually it was really a 

benefit to receive his leadership, and we are very happy he has still 

got his finger in things here. So welcome, Ben, and we are very, 

very happy to see you here. Ben, I think you are handsome as you 

ever were, and there you are right there, up there. Thank you, Ben, 

for all you did. 

Last year, there was a crisis in Honduras. A would be caudillo 

was thwarted by courageous, principled, and legal actions taken by 

a broad coalition of Hondurans. Unfortunately, our government 

sided with the would-be caudillo, and undercut those who were trying to thwart this power grab. 

We do not need to see this incident ever repeated again. We do 

not have to dwell on it; but that is what it comes down to. We expect the United States Government, no matter who is President, to 

be siding with those who believe in the rule of law and believe in 

democratic government; not on the side of people who worship at 

the feet of Fidel Castro and Chavez and all these other would-be 

dictators. 

This chapter, however, is over. And as I recently said upon a 

visit that I took to Honduras, it is time to close the book on what 

happened last year. So that would mean—and we will talk about 

that today or I hope we hear about this today—any policies that 

17

were put in place as part of the mistaken stand against those who 

were thwarting this power grab by would be caudillo Zelaya, I 

guess his name is, any of those policies in place should be immediately de-activated, if not totally rescinded. So we can just leave 

that behind us; a sign for the United States and Honduras to look 

together to the future, rather than be caught up in anything in the 

past. That is what I said when I visited down there, and that is 

something we need to do. 

We can leave this chapter. It would be a benefit to our country 

and to the people there. One thing the Government of Honduras 

can do to help shut the book and move forward is to deal with the 

property claims that have been talked about on both sides of the 

aisle today, which I think were very justified, that there are claims 

by U.S. citizens, like Oscar Cerna, who have claims that need to 

be dealt with. 

So we would send the message to our Government, let us put last 

year’s actions behind us. The message to the current government, 

President Lobo in Honduras is, let us deal with these property 

issues and get them out of the way. 

My colleagues expressed deep concern about this lack of progress 

on these claims. And while Honduras is a recipient of U.S. foreign 

aid, it has got to expect that we cannot just say, oh, well, you are 

going to get foreign aid. But you are not going to deal with legitimate claims of U.S. citizens, like those of Oscar Cerna. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your leadership in 

this hemisphere and the activities, and also as a great friend of 

freedom; and I would say one of the best chairman of subcommittees that we have had in this Congress for the responsibility. And 

actually, your activism is so appreciated, Mr. Chairman. So thank 

you for calling this hearing today. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher; I appreciate your kind 

words. Everybody sitting out there, the truth is that Mr. Rohrabacher and I are classmates. We came to Congress together in 

1988, so we have had a deal since then. He says nice things about 

me, and I say nice things about him; but thank you, thank you 

very much. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Craig Kelly. Craig also served as Ambassador to Chile in 

2007 before starting his current post. That is why his sign says, 

Ambassador Kelly. 

Ambassador Kelly, as I have told you before and as I have mentioned, I was extremely impressed by your excellent work in helping to guide U.S. policy toward Honduras last year; and I have 

been very impressed by your excellent work generally. 

It is people like you who really make us feel proud. The work 

that you do at the State Department, the dedication, it really 

makes us feel proud that we can work together and that the United 

States has such dedicated public servants as yourself. 

As you know, we both participated in an inter-American dialogue 

dinner on the Honduras crisis in the fall. And as I told you a few 

days ago, I saw you put your excellent diplomatic skills to work 

there, and I was very impressed and let everybody know it. So we 

look forward to having you with us today, and the floor is yours. 

18

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CRAIG A. KELLY, PRINCIPAL 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF WESTERN 

HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

(FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CHILE) 

Ambassador KELLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your 

very generous words. I recall very fondly, not only that event 

hosted by the Inter-American Dialogue in October, but also our 

conversation at the State Department earlier this week. Thank you 

very much for that. And again, I join others in welcoming Chairman and Mrs. Gilman, as well. 

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the recent political crisis 

in Honduras, the U.S. response and next steps. I might add, Congressman Mack and others who have expressed opinions about the 

events of the 28th, that in my statement I will talk about why we 

attributed it a coup. But I will be happy in questions to get more 

into that about, you know, why we reached that conclusion. 

Honduras has come a long way since the coup that ousted the 

democratically elected government of former President Zelaya last 

June. We can be proud of the role that the United States played 

under the leadership of President Obama and Secretary Clinton in 

helping to restore constitutional and democratic governance in a 

country with which we have enjoyed strong, historic ties. 

From the beginning of the crisis, we underscored the important 

principles of democracy and due process that were at stake in the 

Honduran crisis. At the same time, we rolled up our sleeves and 

worked with the Honduran people and the international community to help find a way forward. 

Mr. Chairman, even before June 28th, the United States was 

concerned about he increasing polarization in Honduran politics. 

Our Ambassador, Hugo Llorens, spared no effort in urging all parties to resolve their conflicts through dialogue and respect for 

democratic processes. 

After June 28th, the United States pursued a principle policy, 

consistent with our unwavering support for democratic governance, 

the rule of law, and human rights, and was among the first in the 

international community to condemn the coup. We formed part of 

the unanimous suspension of Honduras from the OAS for its violation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. I might add that 

not one country in the world recognized the de facto government. 

I would just like to emphasize, in light of today’s comments, that 

this is not about who President Zelaya was or what he had done 

before June 28th, which we are very much aware of. This is about 

the manner of his removal, and that is why we reached the conclusion that we did. 

Our implementation of this policy included termination of ap- proximately $37 million in U.S. foreign assistance, and suspension 

of visas for senior de facto officials and supporters. At the same 

time, our policy also involved intense engagement with key elements in Honduran society of all sectors to promise dialogue and 

peaceful resolution. 

Discussions facilitated by Costa Rican President Arias during the 

summer led first to the San Jose Accord, and then to a national 

dialogue inside Honduras, which the OAS facilitated. This so-called 

19

Guaymuras dialogue gave the Hondurans more ownership of the 

problem, which was a good thing, and produced progress on several 

issues, until the talks reached an impasse in October. 

At that point, Secretary Clinton decided to send a team to help 

finalize the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord, leading to an agreement 

on October 30th. Once the Accord was signed, we determined that 

the November 29 elections, in preparation long before the coup, 

were a vital part of a solution in Honduras. 

In short, the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord and the November 29 

elections, which were considered free and fair by local and international observers, together formed the basis for the return of Honduras to constitutional and democratic order. 

Since assuming office on January 27, President Lobo has taken 

important additional steps to bring about national reconciliation: 

Installing a national unity government; working to establish a 

Truth Commission; replacing senior military leadership that had 

been involved in the coup; and pledging to investigate fully all alleged human rights violations. 

Now that democratic governance has been restored in Honduras, 

the United States is resuming assistance that will promote economic and social development, strengthen democratic institutions 

and respect for human rights, and enhance Honduras’ capacity to 

combat crime and drug trafficking. 

Re-engagement with the Honduran military will be conducted in 

a deliberate and focused manner that will advance our common 

aim of developing a professional and non-political military. 

We are not the only ones who believe it is time to move forward 

in Honduras. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, 

and the Inter-American Development Bank have re-engaged with 

Honduras; and many, many countries have sent back ambassadors 

to resume productive ties. 

Secretary Clinton, stopping in Guatemala 2 weeks ago, welcomed 

the leadership of the Central American Presidents in promoting the 

re-incorporation of Honduras in regional bodies, including the Organization of American States. 

Mr. Chairman, we will continue to support the new Honduran 

Government as it fulfills its commitment to transparent, inclusive, 

and accountable institutions. The United States has deep and abiding interest in Honduras, and will continue to work closely with 

the government and people there, as they strive to build a better 

future. 

As our hemisphere thrives increasingly on integration on integration based on democratic principles and open economies, having 

Honduras regain its seat at the table is in the interest of all of us. 

In closing, I might add, Mr. Chairman, that in reference to that 

session we had on October 21st here in the Congress, that as you 

gathered people from all sides of the debate—from the United 

States, from Honduras, and from the region—and we had a very 

spirited discussion about Honduras, I remember thinking as I left 

the room, what a great country we are in, that we can have this 

debate in a civil and spirited fashion, looking for a way forward. 

And if I heard correctly the comments that you all made today, 

while there are differences over what happened leading up to and 

during the night of June 28th, there is a great sense that it is time 

20

to move forward and that we have a lot at stake in helping Honduras as it addresses several of the challenges, but also opportunities in the future. With that, I welcome questions. 

There are several questions that you raise that I will be happy 

to address. I could start in with that, or I can wait for follow-up 

questions from you, Mr. Chairman, as you wish. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Kelly follows:]


55517a-1.eps
21


55517a-2.eps
22


55517a-3.eps
23


55517a-4.eps
24


55517a-5.eps
25


55517a-6.eps
26

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you, Secretary Kelly. I will ask a few; 

and then I will have Mr. Mack and then the rest of us will ask a 

few. 

I just want to first state what I actually told you in your office 

the other day; that I think that the State Department’s handling 

of what happened in Honduras was really excellent. I think you 

struck the right balance. I think you took a position in the middle 

of the road; and I think it helped move things along in Honduras. 

Mr. Mack and I may disagree over whether it is called a coup 

or not, but we do not disagree over the fact that former President 

Zelaya tried to usurp power, and tried to violate his country’s Constitution. 

The problem that I have with it is the way it was done; you 

know, whisking him in his pajamas at 2 o’clock in the morning 

under gun point out of the country—I think that that strikes a very 

bad memory for too many people in that region of the world who 

do remember coups like that. It was not a military coup in the 

purest sense of the word, because the military did not take over, 

but the removal was done that way. 

But as I said in my opening statement, I think we need to look 

forward. I was very happy—even though I was not pleased with the 

way Zelaya was removed—I was very happy to support elections in 

that country. And I was very happy, as you know, to issue a statement saying that if there are international observers, and the elections are held freely and fairly, then we and the international community need to recognize those elections. 

So Mr. Mack and I really do not disagree on where we, I think, 

go from here; and really on what should have happened in Honduras. So I just wanted to state that. I think that elections were 

our way out, and now we have to look. 

As you can tell, practically everybody who spoke on both sides of 

the aisle mentioned those cases of American citizens who have 

claims against the Government of Honduras. I am wondering if you 

can comment on it. 

You know, one of the persons, Mr. Cerna from CEMAR, his company, he is actually in the room here today; and I know he has obviously an interest in it. But above and beyond his interest, you 

know, we all have an interest. Because if Americans are treated 

that way, you know, it does not really bode well, as I said, for investment in the country. 

But it does not make us want to help. You know, if our people 

are treated so poorly with such disrespect and disregard then, you 

know, you just kind of feel, well, why are we knocking ourselves 

out to help Honduras, when Hondurans do not treat Americans 

fairly? 

So I wish you can comment on some of those; and what are we 

doing, what will we do, what can we do, to make these people 

whole? 

Ambassador KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having had, as 

you noted, the privilege of being U.S. Ambassador in Chile, I can 

state very directly that one of the key elements of Chile’s success 

has been the environment it created for foreign investors—the 

transparency, the rule of law, the sense of consistency and so forth 

that investors look for when they invest in foreign countries. And 

27

this is something that we talk to many countries about in the region, the need for creating an investment climate that is good for 

everybody concerned. 

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Cerna before the opening of 

the hearing, and I said I would be delighted to have him come by 

the office so we can talk specifically about his case. I know we have 

had a lot of contact with him through the years, and we have a 

strong commitment to working with him to see, you know, what is 

the best way forward. 

I have talked repeatedly with Ambassador Llorens about this, 

with whom Mr. Cerna has met. We agree completely that it is essential to pursue these cases in a way that seeks transparency and 

protects interests of investors. 

We have communicated to Mr. Cerna, and I will look forward to 

a direct conversation soon, that we believe the best channel right 

now for his case is the mechanism provided in the bilateral investment treaty. I understand he has concerns about that mechanism, 

and I will be delighted to talk to him directly about those concerns. 

But we happen to think that that offers the best way forward. 

That has been used many, many times in investment disputes 

around the world, and has been used successfully. So that is the 

path that we encourage. I will be, as I said, happy to talk with him 

further about that. 

The other cases, as well, the Embassy has stayed in very close 

touch with Mr. Kafati, and also the case of Cortez Byrd. The Embassy has followed those very closely, and we will continue to do 

so. We completely agree with all of you on the principle of creating 

an investment climate that is favorable. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, let me thank you. But let me just say that we 

have done some looking into the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). 

And the problem, as I see it, the international arbitration under 

the BIT is very expensive and time consuming. You know, a large 

multi-national corporation can certainly set aside the millions of 

dollars it needs to keep challenging this, with multiple years, you 

know, to pursue these cases in an arbitral panel. 

A small investor does not have the time or resources to follow 

such a course. And that is a very real problem; not only for Mr. 

Cerna, and it is a problem for him, but others, as well. 

So I would hope that the State Department, you know, would 

consider or change its position, and consider the difficulty that a 

small investor has to move forward under the BIT. 

Considering that, I think that the U.S. Embassy and the State 

Department should make extra effort to advocate on behalf of such 

an investor. Because I think the BIT does not adequately address 

the needs. So I believe changes are needed, and I hope that you 

will come to the conclusion, as well. 

Ambassador KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly will 

take all that on board. Our embassy has spoken to the government, 

and the previous government, as well, already with President Lobo 

and his administration about these cases. And I assure you, when 

I go back, I will relay to Ambassador Llorens our conversation and 

the committee’s concern. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you; let me ask you one other question, and 

then I will turn it over Mr. Mack. As I mentioned in my opening 

28

statement, there have been a number of recent murders of 

Hondurans who were active in the resistance to what was happening. 

Three journalists were murdered this month alone. I mentioned 

Nahun Palacios. He was a supporter. He expressed his rejection of 

the removal of President Zelaya. He was gunned down. I do not 

really think it is important as to what his beliefs were. I think we 

need to have the rule of law. 

And so what I wanted to ask you is, is the Lobo administration 

doing enough to respond to recent politically motivated violence? 

The murder of these three journalists, what does it say about freedom of expression in Honduras; and what is the Obama administration doing to bring attention to these human rights problems? 

Ambassador KELLY. Thank you. The terms bring attention. I 

think are very important. You may have seen yesterday our representative in the Organization of American States referred to the 

latest killing in Honduras, and urged the authorities to investigate 

to help to create the climate which, you know, does not condone 

this sort of activity. 

I agree with you completely that it does not matter what people’s 

beliefs are. If they are being targeted because of their beliefs, it is 

unacceptable. 

We believe that President Lobo is very committed to making 

headway on human rights. It is a country which has a history of 

violence, one of the highest murder rates in the world, unfortunately. But when people are targeted for their beliefs, this is a particularly serious sort of abuse, and one that we are very serious 

about. 

In our human rights report which was just issued a few days 

ago, which of course covers last year, it relates several incidents of 

a similar nature that we are concerned about. President Lobo has 

appointed a sort of minister level advisor named Miguel Bonilla, 

whose full-time job will be to address human rights issues. I think 

that high profile is welcome. 

After the very first of these cases since January 27, Ambassador 

Llorens and his embassy issued a statement calling for prompt and 

thorough investigation of these cases. 

So this is something that is very much at the top of our agenda, 

Mr. Chairman, and I assure you that it will continue to be so. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, and I want to say that I think everyone 

at this table, on both sides of the aisle, wish Mr. Lobo the best. I 

think that the steps he has initially taken, in terms of reaching 

across to all political persuasions in trying to have a coalition—I 

think the way he handled the Zelaya incident, being holed up in 

the Brazilian Embassy, was very positive. 

I think all those things are very positive; and I would hope that 

in the countries that are still skittish about recognizing him and 

helping him, including the OAS, would understand that, you know, 

help is in the best interests of the people of Honduras; Mr. Mack? 

Okay, Mr. Smith, Mr. Mack is going to pass for now; Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you; I thank my ranking member. There are 

a number of state legislators in my office that have been there 

since 3:30. So I thank him for his courtesy; and I will just bring 

it down to one question, although I have several. 

29

Like my colleagues, we are all very, very supportive of Mr. Lobo. 

We hope that the President can really being about true, lasting and 

positive change; and he is showing every indication that he is going 

to do it. But I would like to ask again, because this is a festering 

sore, on these property seizures that occurred. 

Are you aware, and if not, could you get back to us on this, 

whether or not any of the new government officials, senior officials, 

senior military officials, include anyone who may have been involved in the abuse of Mr. Cerna and his rights; and can you tell 

us what the State Department has done to assist him in securing 

his rights in Honduras? 

You know, the arbitration is out there. I know you are exhausting all your remedies. I have read all the letters that have been 

sent back. But at some point, you know, when you are looking at 

a process that will go on in perpetuity; that is what his belief is, 

and that I think it is what is the belief of many members of this 

committee. 

It seems that this could be a time when we say, let us resolve 

this. I had a case out of Saudi Arabia once that went on forever. 

It was in arbitration. We talked to the Ambassador here in Washington. I talked to people in Saudi Arabia and ongoing, our Ambassador; and it never went anywhere, and I ended up losing, you 

know, a New Jersey company. So arbitration sounds good; but in 

practice, it is usually a dead end. 

Ambassador KELLY. Thank you, Congressman; on the factual 

question, we will be happy to get back to you on the fact of whether 

there are current members of the government who have had involvement in the case. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE CRAIG A. KELLY TO QUESTION

ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

An external tax audit, commissioned by the Honduran tax authority, Direccion 

Ejecutiva de Ingresos (DEI), and carried out in 2004 by Palao William y Asociados, 

determined that CEMAR had underpaid on its taxes. Based on the audit, DEI found 

CEMAR liable for non-payment of taxes. One of the partners at Palao William was 

William Chong Wong, who was also a Sub-Secretary in the Ministry of Finance from 

2002–2004 and Minister of Finance from 2004–2006. DEI is part of the Ministry of 

Finance. Chong Wong is currently Minister of Finance. We are not aware of any 

other current government officials or senior members of the military who were involved in this case.

Ambassador KELLY. And on the second one, as I indicated, as I 

said, we will look forward to speaking soon to Mr. Cerna, and to 

go over the pros and cons of also other methods of going through 

the Department of Justice route and all that. I know that has been 

in the correspondence, as well. So I do not need to belabor it here. 

But we will be very happy to discuss that directly with him, and 

I understand that time and money are a concern. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE CRAIG A. KELLY TO QUESTION

ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

While the United States government is not in a position to take sides on the merits of Mr. Cerna’s investment claim against the Government of Honduras, the State 

Department has been very active over the last several years in trying to help him 

resolve it. The U.S. Ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, has personally raised 

this issue at the highest level of government, including with President of Honduras 

30

Porfirio Lobo and Minister of Industry and Commerce Oscar Escalante in February 

of 2010, as well as with former President of Honduras Ricardo Maduro in March 

of 2010. Previous U.S. Ambassadors to Honduras Larry Palmer and Charles Ford 

also raised the case at the highest levels of the Honduran government on several 

occasions. We will continue to do everything we can to encourage the prompt resolution of this dispute. At the same time, we have on several occasions encouraged Mr. 

Cerna to take steps to exercise all available rights he may have in the Honduran 

courts or under the U.S.-Honduras Bilateral Investment Treaty.

Mr. SIRES [presiding]. Welcome Ambassador, and I will recognize 

myself, since I was next. 

The situation in Honduras, can you tell me how fragile is it right 

now? Is it fragile; is it solid? How do you see it? Because I still see 

that there were three deaths last month. So how fragile is the 

democratic situation in Honduras? 

Ambassador KELLY. I believe that there is a sense in the country 

that the country is moving forward. There is strong support for 

President Lobo, and there is strong support for the type of government he has set up, which includes three of the four people he ran 

against in the election. 

So this very sincere effort to create a government of national 

unity and reconciliation has been welcomed. Yet, it is a society 

which still has a certain level of polarization; and I think that is 

at the root of some of the violence. So that has to be a concern. 

I do think that the best way for us to address that is to stand 

with him, not just the United States—but other countries in the region—which is why it was very impressive to hear. Two weeks ago, 

I was with the Secretary in Guatemala, when the Presidents in the 

room spoke up of the need for all of them in the region to stand 

with the current Honduran Government and with the Honduran 

people as they address these challenges. 

I think that the country has gone through a traumatic political 

experience. It lasted 7 months, and that has left some wounds. So, 

yes, there are concerns out there. There are sensitivities and a certain polarization, and I think the best thing we can do is to stand 

with them. 

That is why we welcomed the re-integration that is occurring 

with the international financial institutions, and with the many, 

many countries around the world that have sent ambassadors back. 

We think this is very important, and we think that it is growing, 

and that is a trend that will continue. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Ambassador, one of the things that led to the 

Zelaya removal was the influence of Chavez, supposedly. We had, 

in Spain, the judge’s stated decision that Chavez supposedly was 

involved with the terrorists, the FARC. 

I was just wondering if the State Department has changed its approach to Honduras, in terms of calling a coup; realizing that Chavez is interfering in Colombia. He is interfering in Honduras. He 

is interfering in all the other countries in South America. Has the 

administration re-thought the approach? 

Ambassador KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated in 

my opening statement, our position on what happened on June 

28th had nothing to do with the ideas that Mr. Zelaya represented 

in the run-up to the 28th. It had everything to do with how his removal took place, and the fact that there was no due process. 

31

You know, the Honduran Constitution has three different Articles that guarantee right of self-defense, due process, and so forth. 

And what happened during the night of the 28th did not allow for 

any of those steps. 

So while we have studied all of the arguments in favor of the removal, we found that none of them allowed for due process. And 

due process being such a fundamental element of democracy, that 

is why we called what happened a coup. But this had nothing to 

do with the issues you are citing: The influence of Chavez in the 

region and so forth. 

I would note in Honduras, that is a complicated issue, as well. 

I mean, the entry of Honduras into ALBA, the sort of Chavez affiliated alliance in the region, was actually supported by Mr. 

Micheletti when he was head of the Congress. So, you know, that 

part has a complicated history in Honduras, which is why we focused entirely on the process and what took place in the run-up to 

the 28th. 

As for, you know, Mr. Chavez’s influence in the region, we have 

a vision about how we think the majority of countries in the region 

feel they can best move ahead to secure a more inclusive prosperity 

and greater and stronger democracy for their citizens, and we have 

a positive message to work with the majority of countries that 

share that vision. 

We are convinced that it is the overwhelming majority of people 

in the region who believe in strong democratic institutions and 

open economies that want to integrate with the rest of the world 

and underscore human rights and programs that help people 

achieve greater social cohesion and greater social mobility. 

You know, we sometimes cite the example of Chile, which between 1990 and 2006 lowered its poverty rate from 40 percent to 

14 percent. It did so with strong democratic institutions, negotiating free trade agreements with the whole world, but also implementing social safety net programs to give people a chance at social 

mobility. And I think this is the vision that most people in the region embrace. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Ambassador, how stern has been your comments 

to the Honduras Government in terms of confiscating American 

properties? 

I mean, have you pointed out that even in some countries, 50 

years later, it is still an issue when they confiscate American properties? I mean, we really frown upon the fact that our business people go and invest, go and help those countries. And yet, it seems 

like in a blink of an eye, they just confiscate the properties. 

So, I mean, for us, it is very difficult to accept that and provide 

assistance and all the other things that we provide to those countries. So how stern have you been with the government? 

Ambassador KELLY. Well, as I mentioned, Ambassador Llorens 

has already raised this issue with President Lobo, indicating that 

the creation of this climate of protection of investors is very important. We obviously have to look at each case individually. 

You know, whether a particular problem that a company has—

is it expropriation; is it a confiscation; you know, what kind of a 

dispute is it? That, again, is why we tend to favor the mechanisms 

that are provided under the bilateral investment treaties, because 

32

we do think they are the clearest way forward; again, fully understanding the concern that has been expressed by some members 

and by Mr. Cerna and others about the cost and so forth involved 

in that. But when we are looking at what else is available to address those, we still find that that is the best path. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. I would like to recognize Congressman Mack from Florida. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I guess we need to 

talk a little bit more about this. Because it is an offense to me and 

to a lot of people in some way the re-writing of history in Honduras. 

It was not until the administration called it a coup were there 

concerns with the democracy in Honduras. And it was precisely the 

actions of the United States by the Obama administration that created the conditions to create the crisis. 

And what do I mean by that? Up until the administration called 

it a coup, all of the different government institutions were working 

as they were supposed to. You have the Attorney General. You 

have the Congress. You have the Supreme Court; all acting within 

the Constitution and the rule of law. 

And so to now say that we are happy that we helped restore democracy, it is a bit offensive. Because democracy was not in question until the administration labeled it a coup. And frankly, I think 

once that happened, it took a lot of work to try to find a way to 

save face. 

So what we saw down the road and what we still continue to see 

today is an attempt by, I believe, the administration to try to save 

face on the debacle it created by calling it a coup. 

And what do I mean by that? Well, now we are hearing about 

all of the restoring of aid and other things; that it is going to be 

incremental. That somehow Honduras and the government has to 

do something to earn back the right to get some of this back; when 

in fact, they did everything as to their Constitution and the rule 

of law. 

I believe yourself and the witness last week, the Under Secretary 

talked about due process. Well, Zelaya was free to come back to 

Honduras and face charges. Instead, he played a game, trying to 

insight violence at the border and other things. 

But he was more than welcome to come back to Honduras and 

face the charges that were brought against him; and he chose not 

to. Instead, he tried to do an international media game to try to 

get support to get back in power. 

Throughout your testimony, both orally and what you have written and submitted to the committee, we continue to talk about or 

you continue to talk about, and the administration continues to 

talk about a coup; and I am going to give you an opportunity to 

answer this. 

So I would like to know, how do you define a coup? That is one. 

Then I would like to know, when are we going to restore aid, to 

the full extent, and not continue this little game of, well, they have 

not done enough to make us look like we have saved face, yet. 

Then does that also include restoring visas? Because frankly, I 

think President Micheletti and others, it might be a good idea for 

them to come to the United States and share with us what hapVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Jun 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\WH\031810\55517 HFA PsN: SHIRL
33

pened. Since it appears that some are trying to re-write history, 

maybe it would be good that they should be able to travel to the 

United States. 

So those are the three questions. How do you define a coup; 

when are we going restore aid; and does that include the visas, as 

well? 

Ambassador KELLY. Thank you, Congressman. With respect to 

the coup, you cited the events that occurred after the 28th. And I 

think it is certainly true that what happened in Honduras was not 

your sort of classic military coup, where the military took over the 

government. I think everybody recognizes that. 

And just as I said that the determination in our decision about 

the nature of the events of the 28th was not determined by President Zelaya’s policies before the 28th; nor was it determined by the 

way Mr. Micheletti conducted himself after the 28th, it really focused on the manner of the removal of the elected President of 

Honduras. This has nothing to do with the ideology of either person 

involved. 

I made six trips to Honduras during this crisis. I met for hours 

with both President Zelaya, Mr. Micheletti, and then later with 

President Lobo, and with many, many representatives in Honduran 

society. Our aim was to help work with the country, with the precepts that were negotiated in the San Jose Accord and in the 

Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord, which both sides agreed to, that also 

referred to restoration. 

The fact is, many people who supported Mr. Micheletti acknowledged privately that what happened on the night of the 28th was 

a mistake; that this was not the way they should have done this. 

What is difficult in Honduras is that the Honduran Constitution 

lays out no specific path for an impeachment procedure. They used 

to have one. It was taken. It was removed from their Constitution. 

It is, I suspect, something that the Truth Commission may take up. 

It is up to them. But I suspect they will look at this; that, you 

know, why was there no mechanism to address this crisis. 

In a sense, they were sort of playing it by ear. Because there was 

no set procedure in the Honduran Constitution. 

Mr. MACK. Can I suggest that instead of playing it by ear, maybe 

they were acting in a way that they thought was constitutional, the 

rule of law, and that would ensure that there was not violence. 

I mean, you have been there. If you talk to those in the military; 

both the United States military and the Honduran military, they 

will tell you that there was great concern about the actions of 

Zelaya and what to do. And it was Zelaya’s friend in the military 

that made the decision to try to make sure that there was not 

going to be any violence. 

You know, it is one thing for us now to say that, well, we did 

not like the way it happened. Well, then we should have addressed 

that; but not to come out, call it a coup, take aid away, and create 

this issue. It had a severe impact on the Honduran people, and is 

what created the crisis in the first place. 

If we had not, the elections would have happened, just as they 

did. Basically, I think what happened is, you had to have a negotiation, again, to make it look like we did something. And now you 

34

want to re-write history and say that we have helped restore democracy; when, in fact, our actions were irresponsible. 

Ambassador KELLY. Again, I might add that both parties, as we 

approached the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord, did talk about restoration. I mean, there was acknowledgement that something had 

gone wrong and something needed to be fixed, even on the part of 

those who supported the de factos. But we created that. 

Well, I think that if we had not called the events of the 28th a 

coup, we likely would have been the only country in the world that 

did not. I think it is important to keep in mind that not one country in the world recognized the Micheletti government. 

Now I want to add at the same time that one reason I think that 

we were recognized as an honest broker in this dispute is that we 

did not question the motives of people on either side. Our view was, 

there has been an interruption. Even according to the Honduran 

Constitution, there has been an interruption in democratic governance. We want to help work with the country to find a way forward. 

But we also felt it was important to declare what we saw, which 

was that a democratically elected President was removed without 

due process. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Ambassador, I have to cut you off, because I have 

some of the other members, and Congressman Mack, I am sorry; 

Congressman Faleomavaega? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you, 

again, Secretary Kelly, for being here this afternoon. 

Before proceeding, I would like to submit this to you; a copy of 

the letter that was written by Chairman Conyers of the Judiciary 

Committee 2 months ago, reminding again Secretary Clinton that 

1 year ago, some 90 Members of Congress submitted this letter on 

behalf of Mr. Cerna, that we have all discussed earlier today; and 

still, there has been no acknowledgment from the State Department of this letter. I would like to have staff give this to you personally, to give to Secretary Clinton’s staff person, to find out why 

there has not even been any acknowledgment of this. 

But I think all my colleagues have already given you the picture 

in terms of why the rights of U.S. citizens under the U.S. Honduras 

bilateral investment treaty has not been honored. And I would 

think that U.S. investors who invest in Honduras, they should be 

honored; and certainly, the rule of law, we hope, is being followed 

truthfully. Go ahead and give that to him. 

But Mr. Secretary, I was listening with interest to my good 

friend from Florida’s line of questions, which I think has very, very 

far reaching implications. The reason for my saying this is, when 

we talk about coups, things automatically come up. 

For example, we have a Federal law in place. Whenever there is 

a military coup, automatically we put sanctions. The Congress puts 

sanctions or the President puts sanctions on that country that committed a military coup. The question that comes to mind, and as 

stated earlier by the chairman, is the manner in which President 

Zelaya was removed. 

Now correct me if I am right in recalling what happened. Basically, the military physically went to the President’s residence at 

gun point; took President Zelaya and members of his family physVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Jun 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\WH\031810\55517 HFA PsN: SHIRL
35

ically, put them in the airplane and took them to Costa Rica with 

the mandate never to come back to Honduras. 

And I think this is where we are getting a little fuzzy here as 

to exactly what is our position. Because I can tell you, we also had 

a military coup in Pakistan by a General by the name of 

Musharraf. And because of our national security interests, we 

waived that coup against Musharraf for some 8 years and paid 

them billions of dollars; and where did we end up with that, as a 

result of that coup? 

We also had another example of Fuji. There were four military 

coups and one civilian coup, all within 20 years that took place. 

Here, again, we put sanctions on Fuji. We put sanctions on Thailand when there was a coup that was committed there, with no 

real reason at least I could feel justified the way that was implemented. 

So there is a serious question in there and I was wondering, did 

the military act according to authority, or did the General just act 

on his own to physically get rid of Zelaya at that point in time? 

Ambassador KELLY. The question of who gave the order to the 

military is, I think, one of the issues that the Truth Commission 

will actually investigate. Because it is not entirely clear how they 

acted. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am sorry; my time is up. But let us wait 

for the Truth Commission on that, then. I think maybe that will 

explain it better. 

I have another serious question I wanted to share with you. I am 

told that the population of Honduras is about 7.8 million. Out of 

that population, some 546,000 are indigenous Indians or 

Amerindians. I want to know what educational, what social, what 

economic assistance our Government gives specifically to the needs 

of indigenous Indians. 

You know, we have some 565 tribes in our own country. Five million indigenous Native Americans live in our country. And I want 

to know if the Honduran Government, if the State Department is 

doing anything seriously to meet the economic and social needs of 

the 546,000 indigenous Indians that we have living in Honduras; 

and are they given the same civil rights, economic opportunities as 

others? 

I believe in the population breakdown I have here, there are 

some 7 million who are mixed European/Amerindians. Is that the 

new term they use now for mixed Indians? I know there is a subtly 

going on in Latin America that some people do not even want to 

classify themselves as having indigenous Indian blood. 

Evo Morales is the first indigenous Indian elected in Bolivia. Mr. 

Alejandra Toledo is the first Inca individual indigenous Indian 

elected in Peru. There are a lot of issues pertaining to this. So I 

would gather there are some 200–300 million Indians; and I am 

very, very serious in wanting to ask you, Mr. Secretary. I would 

like to know exactly what our country is doing to give assistance 

to the indigenous populations of this country. 

I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman; thank you and I yield 

back. 

Ambassador KELLY. Congressman, I would be happy to give you 

a detailed follow-up in writing. But let me just say very briefly that 

36

this is one of our major priorities in the region. Actually, the Western Hemisphere is far more ethnically diverse than people realize. 

And we have a lot of programs, both in our public diplomacy and 

in our economic assistance, including in our initiative called, Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas, which is an effort to create 

greater social mobility through the countries with which we have 

free trade agreements in the region. 

All these things have as one of their key focuses populations 

which have marginalized from the economic integration, which is 

going on in the region. I would be delighted to give you more detailed information. But it is a very important priority of ours. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE CRAIG A. KELLY TO QUESTION

ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

Consistent with its desire to promote inclusive economic development that meets 

the needs of traditionally marginalized ethnic groups, the United States has targeted some of its assistance to Honduras to benefit the country’s indigenous people. 

Over the past several years, the United States Embassy in Tegucigalpa has worked 

closely with the indigenous communities on several projects that respond to their 

needs. Ongoing projects and the amount of funding for each are described below:

1) Currently, our USAID mission in Tegucigalpa has provided aid in the form 

of decentralized technical assistance and teacher training, standards, curriculum calendars and monthly standardized formative tests for all Honduran children in primary school, including indigenous and Garifuna (AfroHondurans). Indigenous and Garifuna youth and adults also benefit from the 

USAID supported EDUCATODOS program. The EDUCATODOS program 

provides an alternative education system for out-of-school youth and adults, 

who number 7,387 indigenous participants in 640 centers located in ten of 

Honduras’ eighteen departments. ($387,117)

2) Twenty-one Garifuna and indigenous participants were approved to travel to 

the United States for training in 2009, under USAID’s Cooperative Association of States for Scholarships (CASS) Program. An additional thirty 

Garifuna and indigenous participants have been selected for training in 

2010. These participants are expected to travel to the United States for 

training later in 2010. ($1,303,000)

3) Additionally, the MIRA project in coordination with the USFS has established an alliance with the NGO Green Wood to improve the household incomes of approximately 100 Pech families (some 800 people) by teaching 

them how to utilize their natural resources more efficiently, linking them to 

markets, and helping to implement sustainable forest management plans. 

These communities are located in the municipalities of San Esteban, Olancho 

and Bonito Oriental, Colon. ($60,000)

4) USAID’s Rural Enterprise Development Project has assisted approximately 

1,150 indigenous people per year in strengthening and diversifying their agricultural production. This agricultural diversification program focuses on 

the production of high-value crops and value-added products for export and 

regional markets. ($1,250,000)

5) USAID’s health program provides assistance to the Government of Honduras 

at the central, departmental, and local levels to improve family planning and 

maternal and child services in rural areas of Honduras where most indigenous communities are located (Intibuca, Copan, La Paz, and Lempira).μ

Through the USAID-supported decentralization of health services, about 

20,000 indigenous people (Lencas and Chortis) have access to a defined basic 

package of services. ($176,000)

6) Through the USAID Title II Food for Peace program, over 120,000 indigenous people received $1.07 million in food commodities to address the multiple causes and effects of food insecurity by focusing on maternal and child 

health, agricultural productivity, and local capacities development and 

strengthening.

37

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If I could have just 5 seconds, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to note an interesting fact. The population of 

the Hispanic population here in America—out of some 310 million, 

it is 45.5 million Hispanics. And out of that, 58 percent are Mexican Americans. 

Now it seems to be the trend that everybody who is Mexican 

America can claim their ancestry to some Aztec prince or princess 

or some tribe in Mexico with tremendous pride as a descendent of 

many of the tribes that come out of Mexico. I think it is something 

that we ought to take notice for. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; thank 

you. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Congressman. I recognize Congressman 

Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just 

right off the bat, just to make sure that you understand the importance of the three journalists who were murdered, that is not something that is just on their side of the aisle. 

We are very concerned about any journalists or human rights 

crimes such as that. If there is evidence somebody in the government was responsible, we do know that Honduras has a very high 

murder rate; and that in other countries where you have high murder rates and high crime, that sometimes journalists are murdered 

by other than the government. 

But if there is any indication that the government was involved 

in this, we would like you to let us know immediately; notify the 

embassy. Because that, of course, is something that we cannot in 

any way compromise that standard. That is unacceptable, and we 

will follow through on that to make sure that we get information 

about that. 

By the way, in terms of the debate back and forth about the removal of this would-be caudillo, let us just note that due process 

was followed. The military did not just proceed with guns. They 

had an order from the Supreme Court of that country, which was 

a legal order saying that the President was violating the law in a 

power grab that would have basically abrogated their Constitution. 

That seems to me to be fine due process. And to call that a coup, 

like in other areas, is something that I believe, and I agree with 

Mr. Mack, brought on this whole crisis. 

So with that said, we need to shut the book and move forward. 

Let me ask you this. Is Honduras right now permitted to participate in the Organization of American States meetings? 

Ambassador KELLY. They are not now. The re-entry into the Organization of American States requires a two-thirds vote of its 

members. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Ambassador KELLY. We strongly support their re-entry; and as 

I noted, at the meeting with Secretary Clinton in Guatemala with 

the Central American Presidents, she noted with great satisfaction 

that the Presidents spoke up in favor of this. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, I have only got a couple of minutes, 

sir. So your answer is no, they are not participating; but yes, we 

are backing their request to continue to participate. What are we 

doing to ensure that, besides just mouthing off a couple of words? 

38

Are we suggesting the United States might not sit in on meetings, 

if Honduras’ democracy is not able to sit in? 

Ambassador KELLY. Well, Congressman, actually, we see a trend 

of countries that are moving toward normalizing their relations 

with Honduras; and in our view, that is going to lead us to the result we want to see. We are talking with all the countries in the 

region with that end in mind. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would suggest that our commitment to democracy in the Organization of American States, at a time when 

you have countries like Cuba and other dictatorships permitted to 

participate, we should stand firm and make sure there is a penalty 

to pay for organizations that discriminate against democratic governments; while permitting dictatorships like Cuba to be involved. 

In terms of these still pending cases, like we have heard about 

today with Oscar Cerna, let me just note that we need to close the 

book on what happened last year. We need to close the book on 

these cases. And the government in Honduras needs to understand 

that, again, there is a penalty to pay if they are making the wrong 

decision. 

Just for the record, I have a piece of legislation that we will be 

submitting for myself, asking for us to make sure that we, you 

know, leave the past behind and get on with the good relationship 

with Honduras. Mr. Mack, Mr. Burton, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 

are all co-sponsors of the bill. 

But in the bill, it does suggest that those property claims be 

acted on. And if not, there will be another piece of legislation that 

cuts off our aid to Honduras 1 year from now, if it is not acted 

upon; and it is not acceptable simply to say, well, this guy has got 

to go through and all these other people who have been waiting—

not just this one—but they have to go through some bureaucratic 

process that they have already been through. 

These are not claims that were made last year. These are claims 

have been going on and on and on. They have already been through 

the process; and just us pointing them, they will now go through 

the process some more, this is actually draining the wealth and 

rights of these people. Some of them are U.S. citizens. 

So let us get those property claims dealt with; and as I submit 

this, getting back to normal with the Honduras bill. Next year, 

there will be another bill that indicates that there will be a penalty 

to pay, unless we see that case and other cases like it dealt with 

by the Honduran Government. 

And if you would indulge me just one more question, Mr. Chairman, after this whole fiasco last year, there was a policy by our 

Government of revoking the visas of those people who were engaged in this conflict, okay—this controversy that was going on. 

Well, we want to put the controversy behind us and move forward. 

Are those government officials, whose passports were revoked—

are they going to either be issued new passports or have those 

passports renewed, or visas I should say? What is our policy on 

that? Have we now been able to shut that book and move forward; 

or are we so stuck in trying to punish these guys for something 

that we now consider to be old news? 

Ambassador KELLY. Thank you, Congressman; a couple of good 

things, on the property cases—absolutely, I have heard this mesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Jun 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\WH\031810\55517 HFA PsN: SHIRL
39

sage loud and clear today. It is one we do take seriously. But hearing again from you is very helpful, and we will take that as we 

move forward; thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Ambassador KELLY. On Cuba and the OAS, Cuba is not in the 

OAS. The suspension on Cuba was lifted. But what was said in 

Honduras actually in early June, largely at our working, was that 

this had to be accordance with the principles, purposes, and procedures of the OAS, including human rights and democracy. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Good; thank you. 

Ambassador KELLY. And on your final point about visas, visas 

were never meant to punish people. Visas were a policy tool to 

make a point about the effort to work toward a restoration of constitutional and democratic order. We are looking at those, and we 

will be moving on those. 

But we will look at them in terms of, you know, they are not one 

group. They are individual human beings we will be looking at. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But the constitutional government has been 

restored; and so there is no excuse any more to keep that issue 

alive. So I would hope that that is acted upon quickly, because it 

is a stumbling block. These people are influential people in Honduras. Why are we kicking them around, when we have already 

said that that is old news and we want to move beyond it? Thank 

you very much. 

Ambassador KELLY. Thank you. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Congressman. I just have one short question. How concerned was the administration that although Honduras had said that they were going to hold elections in November, 

that they were not going to hold elections in November, after they 

removed Zelaya. 

Ambassador KELLY. I am sorry. I did not quite catch that. 

Mr. SIRES. During the events, I always understood that Honduras always had the intention of having an election in November. 

Ambassador KELLY. Yes. 

Mr. SIRES. How concerned was the administration that Honduras 

was not going to keep their word? 

Ambassador KELLY. The de facto government said right from the 

beginning that they intended to hold elections. 

Mr. SIRES. Right. 

Ambassador KELLY. As I mentioned in my statement, we believe 

that the combination of a movement toward some sort of an internal agreement and the elections was the basis for the way forward. 

Mr. SIRES. So you never had any doubt that they were going to 

hold elections in November? 

Ambassador KELLY. I am not aware of any threat on the part of 

the authorities after June 28th to say that elections would not be 

held. I could be mistaken on the facts. 

But we assumed all along; I know there were statements on the 

part of Mr. Micheletti, that elections would be held. Our position, 

as you know, is that the elections were planned. The candidates 

were chosen in primaries 1 year before the election, long before 

June 28th, and so we supported that process. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, Mr. Ambassador, I want to thank you for coming. I am sure the chairman, had he been here, would thank you 

40

for coming and answering your questions. I appreciated them; 

thank you very much. 

Ambassador KELLY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SIRES. We will now hear from our second panel. Thank you 

for your patience. I am now pleased to introduce our distinguished 

private witnesses. 

Cris Arcos is a former U.S. Ambassador to Honduras. He also 

served as Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for International Affairs during the George W. Bush administration; Mr. 

Arcos, welcome. 

Vicki Gass is a Senior Associate for Rights and Development at 

the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). And last, but 

certainly not least, Kevin Casas-Zamora is a Senior Fellow for Foreign Policy and Latin American Initiative at The Brookings Institution. He is also a former Costa Rican Second Vice President and 

Minister of National Planning and Economic Policies; welcome. We 

will start with you, Ms. Gass. 

STATEMENT OF MS. VICKI GASS, SENIOR ASSOCIATE FOR 

RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON OFFICE ON 

LATIN AMERICA (WOLA) 

Ms. GASS. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Let me 

begin with saying that Honduras is in crisis. Let me also be very 

clear that this is not a crisis that originated in June of last year 

or ended with the inauguration of President Lobo in January. 

The new government faces a crisis of credibility, long in the making, because 30 years of democracy has done little to reduce poverty and inequality in Honduras, which makes it one of the poorest 

countries in the Hemisphere; nor has it curtailed the seemingly entrenched culture of corruption and impunity. 

Citizen belief in the democratic system is at an all time low. A 

recent poll conducted by FOPRIDEH revealed that 60 percent of 

Hondurans no longer believe in democracy. 

Compounding this crisis, violations of human rights have escalated since the coup, and have continued since President Lobo’s inauguration. We have heard about some of those today. 

The State Department also released just last week its human 

rights report, which indicates the following types of human rights 

violations: Unlawful killing by current and former government security forces—at least 50, according to COFADEH; arbitrary detentions, attacks against the press, and disproportionate use of force. 

These attacks were directed against citizens actively opposed to the 

coup and/or their family members. 

Let me share with you some concrete examples. In august 2009, 

Irma Villanueva was arbitrarily detailed by Honduran Policy after 

participating in a peaceful demonstration. While detained, she was 

raped by four police officers, who later inserted their batons into 

her vagina. Sadly, that was not the only case that was reported. 

On December 4th, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Walter Trochez was kidnapped and physically assaulted by unknown 

people. Nine days later, he was assassinated. 

And as we have heard today, three reporters in the last 2 weeks 

have been assassinated; reporters who were outspoken against the 

41

coup. The last one, Nahun Palacios, was shot to death in broad 

daylight last Sunday. 

These last attacks are just a sampling of reported associations, 

kidnapping, and beating that have occurred since the inauguration. 

In Honduras, there is widespread concern that the military has 

emerged stronger from this crisis, and that death squads are once 

again on the prowl. 

The popular reaction against the coup has to be understood in 

the context of the ongoing poverty and inequality in Honduras, and 

the pervasive corruption and impunity. Honduras is rich in natural 

resources. Yet, the majority of the people are poor. The poorest 10 

percent account for only 1 percent of the county’s income; while the 

richest 10 percent account for 42 percent. 

Hondurans are tired of this, and as tired of the corruption and 

impunity. According to the Honduran Anti-National Anti-Corruption Commission in its December 2009 report, corruption pervades 

every level of the state, and particularly in bidding for public state 

contracts, especially in the last 6 months under the Micheletti government. 

This is not a new phenomenon in Honduras. It has happened 

with debt relief funds, and reconstruction funds have been diverted 

to fulfill campaign promises. The National Congress awards contracts to its members or members of their family to build roads or 

bus stations that are never built; and international loans are brokered and debt assumed for projects that are never completed, even 

though the creditors must still be paid. The level of corruption has an enormous social cost; roughly $500 

million are lost every year due to corruption. This is not a new phenomenon, but one that has been going on for decades. 

Unfortunately, prosecutions and convictions of those who participate in corruption are extremely rare. If Americans are unable to 

get their problems resolved in Honduras, even less so Honduran 

people. Only 2.2 percent of the 2,000 corruption cases that reached 

the court between 2002 and 2006 resulted in an actual conviction. 

Corruption and impunity are also problem within the armed forces. 

What could be done to reconcile a deeply divided country whose 

government institutions do not work and lack credibility? There are 

three immediate things that President Lobo must do. He must 

make clear, publicly and privately, that violations of human rights 

are unacceptable and will be punished, whatever the rank or position of those involved. He must guarantee that the Truth Commission has complete and independent power to thoroughly investigate 

and charge those responsible for coup and for human rights abuses. 

Finally, he must carry out a meaningful national dialogue across 

Honduras, drawing on the extensive experience of organizations 

that have worked on local development and civil society participation. I would refer members to my written testimony, which has 

more detailed, concrete suggestions for these three areas. 

President Lobo’s ability to do this will depend in many ways on 

the support of the international community. As is often said out of 

any crisis, there is opportunity. This is a critical moment for Honduras. The United States and other donors must play a key role 

to press President Lobo to carry out these steps and offer him assistance to do so. 

42

Secretary Clinton recently announced her intentions to restore 

aid to Honduras. But WOLA urges the Secretary to not release all 

the aid at once, but gradually based on significant progress in the 

three areas mentioned in my testimony. 

In addition, WOLA recommends that all aid to Honduras be subject to Congressional notification, so that the committees can conduct oversight, as needed. In particular, the subcommittee and the 

appropriators should ask the administration to report to them on 

progress in the areas outlined above. 

The Hondurans I work with are a hard working and noble people. They deserve no less; thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gass follows:]

43


55517c-1.eps
44


55517c-2.eps
45


55517c-3.eps
46


55517c-4.eps
47


55517c-5.eps
48


55517c-6.eps
49


55517c-7.eps
50


55517c-8.eps
51


55517c-9.eps
52

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Ms. Gass; Ambassador Arcos? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CRESENCIO ‘‘CRIS’’ ARCOS 

(FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS) (FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR 

TO HONDURAS) 

Ambassador ARCOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

members, and ranking member, I have had a few years experience 

with Honduras, having served there from 1980 to 1985 and then 

again in 1989 to 1993. I have watched Honduras as it started its 

path to democracy and development. 

Honduras has had an exceptional history during the Cold War. 

It had a key role in the 1980s Central American Crisis, which was 

one of the last two flash points of the Cold War. Afghanistan was 

the other area. United States policy went beyond containment in 

its successful roll back efforts to drive the Soviets from these two 

regions. 

Honduras’ unique history explains why it was not engulfed by 

civil war or insurrection. Henry Kissinger, as head of the U.S. 

Commission on Central America, asked, ‘‘Why was Honduras able 

to avoid the acute instability of its three neighbors?’’ The answer 

was simple. Honduras’ history and topography precluded the development of a traditional repressive oligarchy. 

Honduras escaped civil upheaval. Its democratic process, however, was less than transparent. The rule of law remains a misunderstood concept. Recently elected Porfirio Lobo as President 

faces a similar challenge. The region’s movers and shakers continue to seek too often impunity. Unfortunately, in Honduras, a 

culture of impunity continues alongside the equally undesired practice of conflict of interest. 

President Lobo faces several other hurdles. Income inequity, as 

we mentioned, is creating unsettling new political challenges. Increased dependence on foreign remittances is being driven by uncontrolled Hondurans migrating to the United States. 

Additionally, unenforced foreign investment guarantees remain 

problematic. In Honduras, egregious U.S. investor claims remain 

unsolved or unsettled by the Honduran Government or its justice 

system, as noted in the CEMAR case being expropriated. 

The Bilateral Reinvestment Treaty does not appear to be a practical solution for these neglected cases. This requires a response 

from the Department of State in demanding resolution and a more 

cooperative Honduran Government. 

Another impediment that President Lobo faces is a poorly funded 

and administrated educational system, originally designed to lift 

the county’s poor out of extreme poverty. This educational crisis 

contributes to unsettling social conditions and dwindling opportunities for a better future. 

Criminal gang activity has created widespread fear. This criminal activity includes homicide, kidnapping, rape, narcotics trafficking, and too often, public corruption. Together with narcotics 

trafficking, youth gang warfare has become a national security 

threat to Honduras. 

53

Lastly, institutional weakness is common in Honduras. Governmental institutions invariable are ineffective or inefficient. Corruption is often cited as the cause. 

Honduras has nonetheless come a long way. However, the recent 

political crisis was a shattering and surprisingly polarizing event. 

This involved the removal of President Zelaya. He recklessly ignited severe censure among the Hondurans with his so-called unconstitutional behavior. 

The episode was complicated by the blurred role of the 

Hondurans Supreme Court and its National Congress. This provoked basic constitutional questions. The role of the military became controversial to the democratic process. Re-introducing the 

military into a political role is most disquieting. 

Additionally, the subsequent widespread human rights violations 

that included loss of life, violence against journalists, critics, and 

other dissidents, the closing down of mass media outlets; the ongoing Bajo Aguan peasant land dispute crisis has spiraled into daily 

violence that is symptomatic of the recent political crisis. 

Clearly, President Lobo faces his first real challenge. The sum of 

this recent democratic disruption has unleased challenges for Honduras and specifically for the new President. These include, as I 

mentioned, increased human rights violations as reported by media 

sources and documented by the human rights community. The concentration of power in a plainly victorious political party may 

tempt perpetuation in power. 

Removal of a President by the Army without the presence of civilian authorities presents a dangerous precedent, and wrongfully 

signals the acceptance of the military/civilian role. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Ambassador, we are going to have to cut you 

short. Because we have votes, and I want to hear from Dr. CasasZamora. 

Ambassador ARCOS. Okay. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you; my apologies. 

Ambassador ARCOS. Okay, let me just finish it up then. Frankly 

and finally, President Lobo must demonstrate political will to address these challenges. It is premature to make a judgment. 

The new President appears to have a good sense of his people’s 

right. The establishment of the Truth Commission is imperative to 

help to identify what ails Honduras and offers a roadmap toward 

a way forward. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Arcos follows:]

54


55517b-1.eps
55


55517b-2.eps
56


55517b-3.eps
57


55517b-4.eps
58


55517b-5.eps
59


55517b-6.eps
60

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

Dr. Casa-Zamora, you are on. 

STATEMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY KEVIN CASAS–ZAMORA, 

SENIOR FELLOW, FOREIGN POLICY AND LATIN AMERICA 

INITIATIVE, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION (FORMER MINISTER OF NATIONAL PLANNING AND ECONOMIC POLICY 

AND SECOND VICE PRESIDENT OF COSTA RICA) 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman 

and Members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis in Honduras is the most important incident in inter-American relations of 

the past year. The interpretation of the events that led to former 

President Manuel Zelaya’s ousting from power remains contentious 

to this day. I will avoid re-revisiting that discussion here. 

Indeed, the debate about the constitutional nuances surrounding 

what happened on June 28 of 2009 was of limited value when the 

crisis was raging, and is of even less value now. For what was 

missing though was some reflection about how Honduras got to 

that point, and what should be done to present a similar episode 

in the future. 

The election of Porfirio Lobo as President in a free and fair contest was an important part of the solution to the immediate crisis 

in this small nation. The deeper causes of the meltdown remain, 

however, untouched to this day. 

To his credit, President Lobo has given hints that he understands the complexity of the situation. He grasps that political actors in Honduras have two crucial endeavors in their hands. The 

first is giving the country a sense of political normalcy. The second 

is dealing with the underlying causes of the crisis. 

If Honduras is to return to normalcy, nothing is more urgent 

than fostering reconciliation. A significant part of the road map to 

do this is laid out in the San Jose and Tegucigalpa Accords. President Lobo’s record of implementing this accord is mixed. He made 

a commendable effort to integrate a national unity government and 

played a decisive role in pressing for a controversial, but necessary 

amnesty for political offenses. 

Another key clause of the agreements, i.e., installing a truth 

commission to inquire into the events before and after June 28th 

has proved problematic. The concern here is the Honduran Government’s ambivalence toward allowing the Commission to investigate 

the human rights abuses that took place after June 28. These 

abuses have been denounced, among others, by the Inter-American 

Commission of Human Rights. There is no justification whatsoever 

for leaving these transgressions outside of the Truth Commission’s 

purview. 

The second endeavor for the country’s political elite is dealing 

with three issues that lie beneath the 2009 debacle; namely social 

exclusion, deep distrust in political institutions and a problematic 

constitutional design. Seventy percent of the Honduran population 

lives in poverty. Moreover, the wealthiest 10 percent of the population concentrates six times more income than the bottom 40 percent. This is bad, even for Latin American standards. 

These figures can hardly be dented if the fiscal base of the state 

is precarious. Honduras’ current tax burden stands at 14.8 percent 

61

of GBP; below the average for Latin America and less than half the 

median for industrialized countries. 

Two things are known to happen when a society harbors such 

levels of social exclusion. First, it becomes a violent society. Second, 

it nurtures a political style in which populism becomes a permanent temptation. 

Honduras needs a serious effort to negotiate a fiscal pact that allows for an increasing taxation and a fair distribution of the tax 

burden. 

Equally dismal is the distrust in political institutions. Surveys 

show that trust in Congress, the Judiciary in partisan Honduras is 

below the already low figures for Latin America. This is related to 

pervasive corruption. Honduras stands at the bottom of Central 

America in the Corruption Perception Index elaborated by Transparency International. 

President Lobo should make an effort to de-politicize the institutions charged with controlling the exercise of power, including the 

Supreme Court, the General Comptroller, the National Ombudsman, and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. 

The third issue is constitutional design. The days leading up to 

June 28th provided ample evidence that some aspects of Honduras’ 

1982 Constitution are problematic. One such aspect is the lack of 

an impeachment process against the President, which introduces 

an element of rigidity in a regime that already lacks flexibility to 

deal with political upheavals. 

Re-tooling these norms is, of course, a task for the Honduran 

people alone. Yet, the reluctance to engage in a conversation about 

the country’s constitutional architecture is an odd reaction to an 

episode in which the shortcomings of that design were rendered all 

too evident. 

All these issues require broad based agreements. Honduras 

needs a process of national dialogue in which sectors that supports 

Zelaya ought to participate. While President Lobo should take the 

lead in convening this process, international organizations could 

play a role in facilitating the discussion. 

What are the next steps for the international community? First, 

it should end Honduras’ diplomatic isolation. It is hard to see any 

justification in prolonging this isolation, particularly from the OAS. 

Regardless of what may have happened on June 28th, the current 

government is a result of an election that while not devoid of problems was widely considered free and fair. 

Moreover, there is no evidence that Lobo’s government is exercising powers in ways incompatible with democracy. Chastising 

Honduras after a new government is in place is not the way to protect democracy, if that co-exists with Latin America’s deafening silence regarding serious threats to democracy in countries such as 

Venezuela or Nicaragua, or with the region’s apparent eagerness 

for revoking Cuba’s suspension from the OAS with very few questions asked. This kind of hypocrisy undermines the legitimacy of 

any international forum. 

Normalizing diplomatic relations with Honduras and admitting 

the country back into the OAS’ fold as soon as possible is a contribution that the international community could certainly make. 

62

The second task is nudging Honduras political actors toward 

dealing with some of the tasks outlined before. There are a few levers that could be used. The agreement between the IMF and Honduras that is currently under negotiation presents an interesting 

opportunity. 

It is desirable that the United States and the European Union 

member states use their leverage in the IMF to postpone the normalization of economic relations with Honduras until the Truth 

Commission is guaranteed an untrammeled mandate to inquire on 

the events leading up and following June 28th, including the 

human rights abuses perpetrated after that date. 

The road to democratic health in Honduran is long and steep. 

President Lobo should be commended for making gestures toward 

reconciliation; but a lot remains to be done. Proclaiming that the 

crisis is over is simply a poor service to the Honduran people and 

an invitation for future democratic breakdowns. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Casas-Zamora follows:]

63


55517d-1.eps
64


55517d-2.eps
65


55517d-3.eps
66


55517d-4.eps
67


55517d-5.eps
68


55517d-6.eps
69


55517d-7.eps
70


55517d-8.eps
71


55517d-9.eps
72


55517d-10.eps
73


55517d-11.eps
74


55517d-12.eps
75

Mr. ENGEL [presiding]. Thank you very much. I am going to 

defer for the first question to Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this is for anyone that 

wants to take a crack at this. Over the past couple of years, we 

have seen a closing of democratic space in the Americas. For example, the deteriorating human rights situation in Venezuela, and the 

Supreme Court decision in Nicaragua to lift the Constitution ban 

on re-election. 

I was just wondering, in your opinion, is the administration effectively dealing with the closing of democratic space in the Americas—this administration? 

Ms. GASS. Thank you; I would add from WOLA’s perspective that 

there is actually more of a tendency for countries to move toward 

referendums, which is a demonstration for people’s wish to participate in democracy as a result of their disappointment in the democratic process thus far to end issues of poverty and equality. 

Mr. SIRES. So you are telling me that there is no closing of democratic space; that the referendum is the vehicle? 

Ms. GASS. No, I did not say that there was not any closure. I said 

I think there is a greater tendency toward pushing for referendums, because people want to participate in politics. They want to 

participate in democracy. 

Mr. SIRES. Does anyone else want to comment; Mr. Arcos? 

Ambassador ARCOS. Clearly there are examples; most recently 1 

year ago in Nicaragua. It was alleged in pretty much a consensus 

that the Sandinistas stole the local elections. Clearly that tells us 

that there is something wrong there. 

Mr. SIRES. But how are we handling this, Mr. Ambassador? 

Ambassador ARCOS. Well, I am not in the administration any 

longer, in this administration. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, you have an opinion. 

Ambassador ARCOS. But I would say that what we need to understand is, first of all, I think there was a consensus on this particular case. We need to make sure that the Nicaraguan Government knows our concern; not only ours, but the OAS or anybody 

else, of what is going on there. Because basically, what they are 

doing is basically setting it up for a perpetuation of power. That 

is my opinion; thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Sires; Mr. Mack? 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I listened with 

great interest from all of your testimony. Well, let me just find a 

point that I would like to probe a little bit more. 

Moving forward, what type of activities do you think that the 

United States should engage in on issues of poverty, human rights? 

What types of things, looking forward is it that you think that the 

United States can do to help show that we support the people of 

Latin America; and that we might not necessarily support some of 

the governments in Latin American; but that we support the people 

of Latin America. 

So if you want to just go down the line and each of you give me 

a quick thought on that, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. GASS. Well, I think there are several things that the administration can do. First is, if military and police aid are restored, 

they can use that to strengthen the institution perhaps by invesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Jun 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\WH\031810\55517 HFA PsN: SHIRL
76

tigating the human rights violations that have taken place since 

the coup in June; and use that to strengthen an institution that is 

incredibly weak. 

And then secondly, I would say that they really need to work 

hand in hand in pushing a meaningful dialogue over a longer period of time—not a consultation of 2 or 3 days; but do something 

that is de-centralized in the regions, and supporting that financially, because that is a cost. 

Mr. MACK. Mr. Ambassador? 

Ambassador ARCOS. Frankly, Mr. Congressman, let me say this. 

I think having been a Cold Warrior in the foreign service, this is 

dear to my heart—your question about what do we do in Latin 

America. I started off as a Sovietologist, and I wound up in Central 

America. So that taught me something. 

But let me say this. I think that after the Cold War ended, quite 

frankly favoring us, we tended to forget about Latin America. We 

had other concerns, and then ultimately we had 9/11, and then we 

were even more distant, in a way, from Latin America. I think the 

Latin Americans really feel that we should be closer—not necessarily run their lives or tell them what to do; but basically be 

more supportive. 

I think that the perception in Latin America right now is sort of 

distorted about the United States in many ways. Most recently, 

when you see this new organization that will exclude Canada and 

Mexico; where you will see Colombia and Mexico and El Salvador, 

traditional friends of the United States, joining this. 

It tells me this, and I was quoted some time ago on this, where 

what has happened, it seems like the left has lost its fear of the 

United States; and the right, its respect. Because I think both 

thought we were going to react and squash the left, quite frankly. 

I think they see that as the explanation for Chavez. 

I am not advocating here any violence or anything against anybody or any country. But I think we have to understand how we 

are seen in the wake of the end of the Cold War, which has now 

been 20 years; and that we have been somewhat negligent in coming up with a solid, continuous, clear policy toward the region. 

Mr. MACK. Doctor? 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Thank you, Congressman; that is a really 

important question. The first part of my answer would be that perhaps the United States should qualify the message that for a long 

time became standard; that lifting Latin America’s poor was just 

about trade and investment. It is a much more complicated story. 

I would say that the agenda that Secretary Clinton took to Latin 

America in her last trip was a very good one. By the way, you could 

definitely see the hand of Assistant Secretary Venezuela in crafting 

that agenda. Because he is someone that understands profoundly 

the really deep development issues that are at stake in Latin 

America. 

And when we talk about social inclusion, it is inevitable to think 

of some issues in which the United States could certainly do a lot 

in the region. Tax reform—I mean, you certainly know how to 

charge taxes and to collect taxes in this country. That is something 

that we are not very good at in Latin America. 

77

The other issue is about supporting small and medium enterprises. I mean, there are wonderful things that the United States 

could do to support small and medium enterprises in the region. 

And the other part of my answer would be about having perhaps 

a more subtle understanding of the nature of the political changes 

that are taking place in some countries in the region. 

I am pretty convinced that some of the things that are happening 

in some countries regarding the way some governments are exercising power are not acceptable. But somebody mentioned here the 

issue of indigenous people. 

Well, I mean, the one country in which I can think that something significant has been done about indigenous people is Bolivia. 

I mean, I happen not to like the regime of Evo Morales. But there 

is an issue there; and that tells you that there is a problem of political inclusion that is trying to be sold in some of the countries. And 

oftentimes the process whereby populations that have not been included in the political system, it is not pretty. 

So a more subtle understanding about what underlies beneath 

some of the political change that is taking place in some countries 

would certainly help; thank you. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you; as you can hear, we have votes just 

starting, so I am going to try to speed this up. Let me first ask a 

general question, and anyone who would care to answer it, I would 

be delighted to hear what you have to say. 

Pepe Lobo, when he became President, pledged to implement the 

two remaining pieces of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord; and that 

is the formation of a national unity government and the creation 

of a Truth Commission to investigate the events before, during, and 

after the ouster of President Zelaya. 

What to an extent, in your opinion, have these pieces of this accord been implemented. The Lobo administration, would you describe them as a national unity government; why or why not? And 

how would you assess the Lobo administration’s efforts to foster political reconciliation in Honduras; what more would need to be 

done? Does anybody want to try it? It is a big question. But essentially, how do you think Lobo has been doing in all those things? 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. As I said in my statement, I think the record 

is mixed. I think he did great when it came to putting a lot of pressure to have an amnesty voted by the Honduran Congress. The amnesty is not pretty; but it is necessary. It was, you know, the right 

thing to do. And amnesty for political offenses—I mean, of course 

there is a discussion on all this. 

I think he did well and should be commended for trying to integrate a national unity government. My only issue with that is that 

some of the people that he called on to serve in his administration, 

people from other parties, are there on a personal capacity. They 

are not there because they represent political sectors. Some people 

might say that that is not a national unity government. All the 

same, I think he should be commended. I think it is a courageous 

thing to do. 

And the third point, which is the one that concerns me the most 

is the ambivalence with regards to the mandate of the Truth Commission. I think that is a burdening issue, quite frankly. 

78

And I think the attempts to live outside of the Commission’s purview, the human rights abuses that have been documented to have 

occurred after June 28th, is unacceptable; and the international 

community and hopefully the U.S. Government should rebuke that 

attempt to life those abuses outside of the workings of the Commission. 

Mr. ENGEL. What more would need to be done, in your opinion, 

for the Truth Commission to get started with its work? 

Mr. CASAS-ZAMORA. Well, they need to appoint the members, and 

I think they are making some progress in that regard. And I think 

the crucial discussion here is about the mandate of the Commission, and the Commission’s ability to make proper recommendations about what they find as a result of their investigation. 

It is my impression that the agreement between the IMF and the 

Government of Honduras that is currently under negotiation offers 

a very interesting lever to nudge the Honduran Government toward complying with a mandate for the Truth Commission that includes the investigation of human rights abuse. 

Because I do not think the normalization of economic relations 

with Honduras should take place until there is an explicit commitment by the Honduran Government to cooperate fully with the 

Truth Commission in whatever direction their investigation takes 

them. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you; Ambassador, did I see your hand up? 

Ambassador ARCOS. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I would just like to add 

to what Dr. Casas said. Personally knowing Pepe Lobo, I think that 

he has the best of intentions and great political instincts in the 

sense of his people. 

I think the Truth Commission is certainly the first vehicle he 

will use. I think my guess is that he will keep it from becoming 

a sort of Sectarian, let us get one side or another. I think he is 

going to try to keep it away from becoming that politicized. Because there is a tendency, and I think the debate is the country is, 

we should go after ‘‘x’’ and not ‘‘y’’ or ‘‘y’’ over ‘‘x.’’

So I think that he will be a moderating factor in that. But I 

think he has to be very clear of his own expectations publicly, so 

he can lay the markers out. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you; let me ask you, Mr. Ambassador, a question on another subject. You heard all of us speak to Ambassador 

Kelly and talk about these cases that were held out by American 

citizens. We mentioned, in particular, Mr. Cerna’s case, the 

CEMAR plant case. 

Do you know if, in fact, it is true that the military holds a very 

significant ownership and management stake in the largest cement 

company currently in Honduras; and is this the same company accused by Honduras’ own Attorney General of, and I am quoting 

him, ‘‘eliminating and bankrupting the CEMAR plant’’? 

Ambassador ARCOS. What I know, Mr. Chairman, is the following. When I was there, they had what they called an institute. 

But the military had a pension fund, quite frankly, which was the 

largest owner of one of the cement companies which grew to be one 

of two major cement companies. When Mr. Cerna entered the market, he competed with them. 

79

So they did have that, and I think they had it up until recently. 

I am not aware of whether they have it yet; still have it or not have 

it. But certainly at the time of what happened to Mr. Cerna, they 

did have an interest in it, as far as I understand. 

I think that this has been a problem. But you know, quite frankly, there is a distance between the actually military general or colonel running the company. It is when it is the pension fund that has 

a tremendous influence; but it represents the military. 

So there would be a discussion here that would not be very clear. 

Because the implication is that the military sort of runs it like it 

runs a unit. It does not do that. But there is interest there. There 

is clearly interest, and that needs to be clarified. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you; and let me ask a final question, based 

on something that I mentioned in my opening statement. That is 

the attacks on the LGBT community in Honduras. 

In June, I am told that the attacks on that community escalated 

substantially in June with 19 murders of prominent members of 

that community. What can the Obama administration do to encourage the Honduran Government to help prevent future violence 

against this community; and are there activities we could financially support in Honduras to strengthen these groups operating in 

the country? I do not know, Ms. Gass, would you want to try that 

one? 

Ms. GASS. I think that is a complicated question, Mr. Chairman, 

given the level of impunity and corruption that exists in Honduras. 

I think certainly that the Embassy and Tegucigalpa have spoken 

out very strongly against the murder of Walter Trochez, as well as 

others, since the June coup. 

I think I would encourage them to continue to do that; and 

again, use aid that is reinstated to strengthen institutions—the judicial system, the investigatory capacity of the police, and others. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you; I think that will have to be the last 

word, because Mr. Mack and I have to take a series of three or four 

votes. 

But I want to thank the three of you for excellent testimony. I 

apologize that I had to leave for a little while; because what I was 

doing here was trying to juggle five balls in the air at the same 

time. 

But obviously this is something that is of great concern to Mr. 

Mack and myself and our entire committee. I think that there are, 

as I said before, not a lot of difference when it comes to Honduras 

between the two parties. 

I know that the United States wants to help that country get 

back on its feet, and I think that this subcommittee will continue 

to monitor that progress, with consideration of all the important 

issues that we raised today. So I thank the three of you for excellent testimony, and the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(81)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

82


55517n.eps
83


55517m.eps
84

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CONNIE MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


55517f-1.eps
85


55517f-2.eps
86

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517g-1.eps
87


55517g-2.eps
88

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517h-1.eps
89


55517h-2.eps
90

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


55517i-1.eps
91


55517i-2.eps
92


55517i-3.eps
93


55517i-4.eps
94

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


55517j-1.eps
95


55517j-2.eps
96

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


55517k-1.eps
97


55517k-2.eps
98

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


55517l-1.eps
99


55517l-2.eps
100


55517l-3.eps
101


55517l-4.eps
102


55517l-5.eps
103


55517l-6.eps
104

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


55517o.eps
105

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


55517p.eps
106

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


55517q-1.eps
107


55517q-2.eps
108


55517q-3.eps
109


55517q-4.eps
110


55517q-5.eps
111

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


55517r-1.eps
112


55517r-2.eps
113

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517s-1.eps
114


55517s-2.eps
115

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


55517t-1.eps
116


55517t-2.eps
117


55517t-3.eps
118


55517t-4.eps
119


55517t-5.eps
120


55517t-6.eps
121


55517t-7.eps
122

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


55517u-1.eps
123


55517u-2.eps
124

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517v-1.eps
125


55517v-2.eps
126


55517v-3.eps
127


55517v-4.eps
128


55517v-5.eps
129

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517w-1.eps
130


55517w-2.eps
131

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517x-1.eps
132


55517x-2.eps
133


55517x-3.eps
134


55517x-4.eps
135


55517x-5.eps
136


55517x-6.eps
137


55517x-7.eps
138

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517y-1.eps
139


55517y-2.eps
140

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517z-1.eps
141


55517z-2.eps
142

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517aa-1.eps
143


55517aa-2.eps
144

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517bb-1.eps
145


55517bb-2.eps
146

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517cc.eps
147

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


55517dd-1.eps
148


55517dd-2.eps
149

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


55517ee.eps
150

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA


55517ff-1.eps
151


55517ff-2.eps
152

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE


55517gg-1.eps
153


55517gg-2.eps
154


55517gg-3.eps
155


55517gg-4.eps
156


55517gg-5.eps
157

[NOTE: A submission for the record by the Honorable Eliot L. Engel 

consisting of court papers from the United States District Court, 

Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, of Byrd vs. 

Forestal, filed February 24, 2003, is not reprinted here but is available in committee records.]

Æ