Blog Layout

Honduran President Hernandez was Washington’s man, until he wasn’t

Mar 02, 2022

The former leader spent years stealing, defrauding, trafficking drugs and worse. When he wasn’t useful anymore, the US indicted him.

The former President of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, or JOH, was arrested last week and will likely soon face charges by the U.S. Justice Department for allegedly trafficking roughly 500,000 kilos of cocaine. An Associated Press headline dubbed it a “stunning fall,” but the U.S. government provided him with significant support despite extensive evidence linking him to drug smuggling.

Aside from his ties to narcotics, Hernandez was involved in several scandals, including embezzling funds from Honduras’ social security system, stealing from World Bank development programs, credible fraud allegations in his 2017 re-election, and pervasive human rights violations by the police and military. In private conversations, Hernandez bragged about siphoning U.S. aid via phony NGOs.


The DOJ declined to press charges until after he left office last month. JOH was referenced as “CC-4,” or co-conspirator 4, in his brother’s drug trafficking case, along with other cases in the Southern District of New York. Nonetheless, this right-wing leader, who steadfastly supported U.S. economic, immigration, and military interests, enjoyed eight years of cordial relations with the White House. 


American diplomats looked the other way as Honduras developed into a narco-state. Adding to this hypocrisy, the U.S. provided millions of dollars of aid for counternarcotics that trained/equipped a police and military bureaucracy riddled with corruption. In turn, Honduran security forces have acted viciously against peaceful protest.


The former president’s brother, Tony Hernandez, was arrested in Miami in November 2018 on drug trafficking charges. Prosecutors alleged that he transported a whopping 185 tons of cocaine into the U.S. The jury heard from drug kingpins that JOH extorted them for protection money. 


One of those witnesses was Tony Hernandez’s partner, Amilcar Alexander Ardón Soriano, a convicted trafficker and a former Honduran mayor. Juan Orlando Hernandez solicited $1.6 million from Ardón Soriano for his 2017 presidential run. Ardón Soriano also testified that he arranged a meeting in which El Chapo handed the former President $1 million in cash in exchange for protecting his shipments within Honduras. 


Tony Hernandez’s cocaine labs in Colombia and Honduras branded his product with a “TH” logo for law enforcement officials to know what not to touch. In addition, he padded his profits by partnering with multiple cartels to buy logistical support/protection from Honduran authorities, even renting his personal helicopters so their representatives could verify that shipments weren’t intercepted. Hernandez also ordered the murder of rival traffickers and potential snitches. These revelations led to Tony Hernandez’s conviction in October 2019 and a life sentence. 

"TH" Branded Cocaine - Southern District of New York

Juan Orlando Hernandez will likely meet a similar fate, but it begs the question of why the DOJ delayed action for so long. Prosecuting a foreign head of state poses jurisdictional challenges, among others. However, the Justice Department hasn’t demonstrated the same deference to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He, along with 14 other Venezuelan officials, was indicted in March 2020. The Justice Department’s Narcotics Rewards Program is even offering a reward of $15 million for information leading to Maduro’s arrest or conviction.

The reluctance to prosecute JOH had to do with international politics, not legal formalities. Case in point: George H. W. Bush launched Operation Just Cause in 1989 to capture the Panamanian dictator, Manuel Noriega. Much like JOH, the U.S. government was fully aware of Noriega’s ties to drug trafficking; he was on the CIA’s payroll for decades. 


JOH wasn’t an intelligence asset, but he offered a subservient relationship. That was a change from the left-of-center President Manuel Zelaya who was elected in 2006. Zelaya wanted moderate economic reforms, but he shifted further to the left after entering office. This was partially prompted by the heavy-handed tactics of American diplomats. 


U.S. Ambassador Charles Ford provided Zelaya with a list of prospective nominees for cabinet positions whom the U.S. found to be acceptable. Such gestures, among others, proved to be counterproductive as Zelaya developed relationships with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and suggested that he may seek a constitutional amendment that would permit him to seek a second term. Those moves helped neoconservatives, such as Otto Reich and Elliott Abrams, and right-wing U.S. lawmakers, notably Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), to defend the 2009 military coup by labeling Zelaya as an “autocrat determined to turn Honduras into an undemocratic, hostile state.” 


Obama publicly criticized the coup as “illegal” and briefly withheld foreign aid but restored most of it in March 2010 after a controversial election that most international monitoring groups, including the Organization of American States and the European Union, refused to observe. The winner, Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo, ironically made Reich’s warnings about Zelaya take actual effect. Lobo’s right-wing National Party (JOH’s party) began to consolidate its control over post-coup Honduras that would be increasingly characterized by kleptocracy, corruption, gang violence and human rights abuse, recalling the country’s past as the original “banana republic.”


Several anti-corruption leaders, such as the country’s drug czar and anti-money laundering prosecutor, as well as civil-society activists, were assassinated during Lobo’s four-year tenure, while drug-trafficking flourished as never before. Remarkably, Pepe Lobo’s own son, Fabio, was indicted and prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department for transporting thousands of kilos of cocaine (beginning in 2009) in partnership with the Honduran Cachiros Cartel whose leader testified that Fabio was acting on behalf of his father. While Fabio is currently serving a 24-year prison sentence, DOJ has so far failed to press charges against the former president. he State Department added Lobo and his wife to its “corrupt and undemocratic actors” list, thus making them ineligible to legally enter the U.S. However, DOJ hasn’t proceeded with forfeitures against the couple’s Florida real estate holdings


The corruption under JOH, who served as president of the National Congress under Lobo until his own election as president in 2013, was even more obvious. After only four days in office, the police made the first-ever discovery of an opium-growing operation within Honduras. They arrested two Colombian nationals, confiscated weapons and 1,800 opium poppy plants and 800 cannabis plants. However, Tony Hernandez interceded and helped gain the release of the two Colombians from police custody. The officer who led the raid, Leandro Osorio, was removed from his post and soon fled the country due to death threats


The former national police chief, Ramon Sabillon, also fled the country. He apparently did his job too well and was fired by JOH after making high-profile drug busts, including the leaders of the Valle Cartel. Multiple whistleblowers exposed the Hernandez family’s criminality, but this information was largely ignored by the mainstream U.S. media.


That omission contrasted with the media attention — particularly after then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016 sought to use growing anti-immigration sentiment as the basis for his presidential campaign — devoted to unprecedented levels of emigration of Hondurans whose daily lives were increasingly dominated by deepening poverty and gang warfare. Once Trump was elected to the White House, immigration superseded drug-trafficking or geopolitical concerns as Washington’s top policy priority vis-a-vis Central America. When JOH agreed to fully cooperate with Trump’s anti-immigration policies — eventually even signing an agreement allowing Washington to deport potential asylum seekers to Honduras — Washington effectively turned a blind eye to the Honduran president’s misdeeds. 


Thus, when JOH used his hand-picked members of the country’s Supreme Court to permit him to run for a second term in 2017, the Trump administration, as well as the U.S. neoconservatives and right-wing lawmakers who had so aggressively denounced Zelaya as a tyrant for suggesting holding a referendum on amending the constitution, simply looked the other way. Worse, despite widespread denunciations of the election itself as rigged — the OAS, for example, found so many irregularities that it called for a rerun — the U.S. ambassador nonetheless commended the credibility of the electoral process. 


And even after his brother’s 2019 conviction in a U.S. federal court, the State Department continued to publicly praise JOH’s anti-drug efforts. Out of power, however, the former president has lost his usefulness. A moderate reformist, Xiomara Castro, former President Zelaya’s spouse, soundly defeated the National Party’s candidate two months ago. 


Before leaving office, however, Hernandez appears to have sought some form of assurance that he could avoid prosecution. In the waning days of his tenure, he moved the Honduran embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem where he reportedly received assurances from Israeli officials — some with close ties to the neoconservatives in Washington who defended the 2009 coup that brought the National Party to power — that they would use their influence to help prevent his extradition to the U.S. In the end, however, their efforts proved insufficient.


As with Noriega, however, JOH’s relationship with the United States illustrates much about U.S. foreign policy. Whether it’s drug trafficking, immigration, or countering the influence of geopolitical or ideological foes that constitute the priority du jour, the fate of small countries like Honduras will depend disproportionately on Washington’s domestic political agenda rather than the actual needs and aspirations of the local population.

By Brian Saady 07 Apr, 2024
Iran provides immunity for Naji Sharifi Zindashti in exchange for committing extrajudicial executions abroad.
By Brian Saady 27 Mar, 2024
Lazy journalists labeled Epstein as a “financier,” a “man of mystery,” a “philanthropist,” etc. This was one of the most sought-after stories of recent times, yet the corporate media dropped the ball through self-censorship and ineptitude. The evidence indicates that Epstein was involved in the intelligence community. It defies logic to think otherwise considering that he was so deeply tied to one of the largest Ponzi schemes of its time, involved in international arms dealing, owned a fake passport, operated a blackmail scheme that masqueraded as a sex trafficking ring, influenced key business/political leaders, held hundreds of millions of dollars of nebulous wealth, among other reasons. Here's a timeline of events that will help to clear up many of the questions surrounding his life. Timeline 1974 June – Epstein finished studying at Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University without receiving a degree. 1974-1976 Epstein was a teacher at Dalton School in Manhattan, an elite private school. 1976 – Epstein was dismissed from Dalton School. Six of his former students spoke to a reporter at The New York Times . They said that he didn’t touch them, but he crossed lines of appropriate behavior, particularly when he attended high school parties. 1976 – Epstein joined Bear Stearns and started as a junior assistant to a floor trader. He gained this opportunity because he impressed then Bear Stearns CEO, Alan “Ace” Greenberg, during a parent-teacher conference . Epstein reportedly tutored the son of Greenberg and was friendly with Greenberg’s daughter. 1980 – Epstein had a rapid rise through the company and became a limited partner in Bear Stearns. 1980 Oct - Epstein featured as Cosmo magazine's “Bachelor of the Month.” 1981 March 12 - Epstein resigned from Bear Stearns. This was after the firm fined him $2,500 for breaking a regulatory rule by letting a friend/client borrow money to buy stock. He also received a 60-day suspension. 1981 April 1 – Epstein testified to SEC officials about his time at Bear Stearns. The SEC questioned him about the suspicious timing of his resignation. It came days before an insider trading scandal. The Seagram Company attempted a takeover of St. Joe’s Mineral Corp. Traders at Bear Stearns were suspected of using offshore accounts to trade based on that nonpublic information. Epstein maintained that his resignation had nothing to do with that investigation and never faced charges. This is the beginning of a pattern of Epstein’s connections to financial scandals without facing time behind bars. 1981 August – Epstein formed his financial advisory firm , Intercontinental Assets Group Inc, which he ran out of his apartment in New York City. 1981 – Epstein was a natural charmer/networker/manipulator/con artist. However, when he met Douglas Leese at a Texas oil tycoon’s party, that was seemingly when he became a player in the intelligence community. Douglas Leese’s name is kind of a footnote in most contemporary Epstein reporting, but Leese was a prominent British arms trafficker. That’s an industry that often is a nexus between intelligence agencies, corrupt politicians, and savvy money launderers; the latter being where Epstein’s help was likely welcomed. Douglas Leese was one of the facilitators of Britain’s largest arms/corruption scandal in history. According to the British Parliament , he helped to arrange some of the bribes, possibly using the offshore bank, the Bank of NT Butterfield in Bermuda, for the Al Yamamah oil-for-arms deal between Saudi Arabia and the British defense contractor worth £43 billion in revenue between 1985 and 2007. Douglas became a mentor to Epstein, according to Douglas Leese’s son, Julian Leese. Douglas Leese was also linked with the Saudi arms trafficker, Adnan Khashoggi. He was one of the key brokers in the Iran-Contra affair .
By Brian Saady 05 Feb, 2024
For the last two decades, while U.S. forces occupied the country, Afghanistan has been the epicenter of the world’s opium production with roughly 90% of global supply. After American troops withdrew from the country, and with the Taliban in charge, Afghan opium production drastically declined. There were an estimated 6,200 tons produced in 2022, as opposed to 333 tons in 2023, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). That may surprise some readers as the Taliban have been credibly linked with the heroin trade. The UNODC estimated in 2009 that the Taliban generated $155 million per year from Afghan opium. They weren’t traffickers but they forced traffickers and farmers to pay a “tax” in their territories. Even though those were handsome profits, the Taliban were relatively a minor part of a massive black market worth then roughly $3 billion annually. History shows that the Taliban’s policy on opium has shifted from time to time depending upon their circumstances. An opium ban in Afghanistan seems to fall in line with the Taliban’s tyrannical fundamentalist Islamic modus operandi. However, it also benefits those in power. Several Afghan warlords derive much of their authority as a result from black market profits. Hence, whoever controls the opium trade, or lack thereof, in Afghanistan holds all the cards in a country where the average annual income is 378 US dollars. After the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan in 1996, they struggled to find international recognition. Therefore, the Taliban killed two birds with one stone when its former leader, Mullah Omar, issued an opium ban in July of 2000. That edict was beyond effective. According to UNODC estimates, Afghan opium production dropped from 3,276 tons in 2000 to 185 tons in 2001. The U.S. State Department even approved $43 million of humanitarian assistance for the Afghanistan government just months before 9/11 due to its strong counternarcotics efforts. After 9/11, the Taliban’s power decreased but didn’t cease. America installed a deeply corrupt transitional government. In turn, opium production escalated exponentially. America sided with militias entrenched in the opium trade who opposed the Taliban, such as the Northern Alliance. But, the Western media has only reported in drips and drabs about the U.S.-allied politicians/warlords who have been far more prominently involved in heroin trafficking. The corruption ran to the top. There are too many flagrant examples to list concisely, but notably, a man carrying 183 kilos of heroin was released by the police because he was carrying a signed letter of protection from Afghanistan’s drug czar, General Mohammad Daud Daud. Wikileaks revealed that former President Hamid Karzai once pardoned five police officers who were captured with 124 kilos of heroin. Even Hamid Karzai’s half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, was a known drug smuggler who had been on the CIA payroll for years. Practically the entire Karzai administration was on the CIA’s payroll all while the agency knew these officials were drowning in drug money.
By Brian Saady 03 Sep, 2022
The long-lasting effects of the Cold War and the War on Terror has fueled rampant global violence.
By Brian Saady 19 Mar, 2022
The American Government Has Protected this Corrupt Strongman for Years
By Brian Saady 30 Jan, 2022
A Deep Look at the Assassination of Haiti's President and the Links to the U.S. Government
By Brian Saady 15 Nov, 2021
Last month, the lengthiest manhunt in Colombian history culminated in the capture of the country’s most-wanted criminal, Dario Antonio Úsuga aka “Otoniel,” head of the notorious crime organization known as Gulf Clan or Urabeños. C olombia’s Defense Ministry estimates that this cartel, one of the country’s most powerful criminal organizations, smuggles up to 200 tons of cocaine annually, and has killed over 200 members of Colombia’s security forces. Otoniel deserves to be brought to justice, but the media’s oversimplified narrative about the takedown of “a drug kingpin” inadvertently serves as free public relations for the United States government’s disastrous foreign policy. The ugly truth is the American and Colombian governments indirectly enabled Otoniel’s rise to power through the decades-long War on Drugs. Otoniel is now Public Enemy Number One, but he was one of the roughly 30,000 right-wing paramilitary troops who fought on behalf of the Colombian government against the FARC and other leftist rebel groups in the 1990s. Like many other paramilitary members, he wasn’t particularly motivated by ideology, but by money and power. In fact, before Otoniel and his brother joined the most powerful right-wing paramilitary organization, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, or AUC, they were members of the Marxist-Leninist guerilla group, the Popular Liberation Army. In the 1990s, paramilitaries were at the nexus of U.S. military and geopolitical interests in South America. Leftist rebels often committed acts of terrorism and extortion against U.S.-based corporations. That is why companies like Occidental Petroleum were key lobbyists for Plan Colombia, a Washington policy that was passed in 2000 and has since provided Colombia well over over $10 billion in military support for counternarcotics efforts, which has led to widespread and well-documented war crimes committed by the paramilitaries. Hence, the decision by Otoniel to join the AUC was likely more about self-interest than anything else. Profits from illegal drugs helped fund both the paramilitaries and the rebels. There was more money in it, and U.S. military aid disproportionately focused on fighting leftist drug trafficking organizations in Colombia. The United States can’t claim ignorance about the Colombian military-paramilitary connection. Human Rights Watch issued a report detailing how the U.S. Department of Defense and CIA coordinated with the Colombian military in 1991 to target and murder Colombian civilians who were not actual rebel enemy combatants. They were people suspected of being “communist sympathizers.” Many were liberal social activists and union leaders who directly opposed the interests of U.S. corporate interests in Colombia. The National Center for Historical Memory (CNMH) found that the paramilitaries had committed 1,166 massacres up until 2013. These attacks occurred often with direct coordination and/or protection from the Colombian government. In short, the paramilitaries were state-sponsored death squads. One such attack on July 15, 1997, was extensively documented and illustrated the macabre nature of the AUC. Over one hundred paramilitary fighters surrounded the town of Mapiripán and singled out community members who they viewed as communist sympathizers. The entire city was forced to watch as the paramilitaries tortured and eventually dismembered these people with chainsaws and machetes. The violence lasted for five days and the military ignored calls for help. The exact number of victims is unknown, in part because their bodies were tossed in the Guaviare River, but experts say at least 30 dead, with the highest estimate at 77 . Declassified U.S. government documents show that this attack was coordinated by the Colombian military. The AUC’s leader brazenly told the Colombian media afterward that there would be “many more cases like Mapiripán.” And the AUC kept to their word. One would think that Washington would not agree to send millions of dollars to a government with ties to such organizations. But Plan Colombia was passed just three years later with a big assist from President Bill Clinton. Clinton was even able to waive most of the human rights protections known as the “ Leahy Laws ” that would have affected the foreign aid going to Colombia in the plan. “His signature meant that lethal weaponry, intelligence support, and counterinsurgency training supplied by the United States would flow to Colombia’s military even as many of its units worked with the paramilitary groups responsible for massacres and widespread terror,” Human Rights Watch charged in a 2001 report . Despite years-long efforts, the AUC wasn’t officially designated as a terrorist organization until the ironic date of September 10, 2001. Whereas, the U.S. State Department designated the FARC four years earlier . After 9/11, George W. Bush pleaded for unified support from the international community against terrorism, but his administration indirectly funded terrorism committed by the Colombian government and its paramilitaries. Washington even increased funding for Plan Colombia in 2002 when Colombia elected Alvaro Uribe as President. Declassified documents show that U.S. officials were fully aware of Uribe’s extensive links with the Medellin Cartel and paramilitaries as early as 1991. The Bush administration had an opportunity in 2003 to take a stand against Colombia’s domestic terrorism when then-Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff was approached by representatives from Chiquita Brands International. They told Chertoff that Chiquita made payments to the AUC. Chertoff confirmed that the payments were illegal, but he left the door open to possibly continuing the payments because he didn’t want their company to cease operations in Colombia. Chertoff promised to follow up with them after consulting with national security officials. Chertoff never followed up with Chiquita, and their company continued making payments to the AUC. That dereliction of duty aided Chiquita’s eventual defense, which resulted in only a fine for the company. Chiquita described the payments as “protection money,” but evidence shows that the company had helped the AUC receive massive weapons shipments as well. Numerous scandals involving many Colombian politicians and prominent businesspeople forced the AUC to officially disband in 2006. Thousands of the fighters truly disarmed, but many simply separated into new organizations. The most notable is the Gulf Clan or the Urabeños. And this is where Otoniel comes back into the story. The modus operandi of the Gulf Clan shifted to that of a more of a traditional organized crime syndicate in that they began to openly threaten and murder government security forces. However, their organization maintains its roots as a tyrannical right-wing death squad. They distribute pamphlets throughout the rural territories that they control and threaten to “ socially cleanse ,” i.e. murder homosexuals, indigenous people, and liberal activists. They are a big reason why Colombia has the highest murder rate in the world for social activists , and the Gulf Clan often threatens specific activists in these pamphlets. It’s difficult to determine how far the Gulf Clan has shifted from the government’s enforcement wing to an organized crime family. However, the Medellin-based news organization Colombia Reports suggests that they functionally remain an organ of state-sponsored terrorism. Colombia Reports highlights odd coincidences in which the Gulf Clan has threatened to “ socially cleanse ” in areas that benefit the state-owned oil company, Ecopetrol, and ahead of Presidential visits from Ivan Duque, the protégé of Alvaro Uribe. Even if one accepts the notion that the Gulf Clan no longer has any paramilitary ties and acts purely as a criminal organization, there’s no reason to believe that Otoniel’s downfall will have a long-term effect on the drug trade. One person has been removed from an organization of 3,800 people that generates millions of dollars in revenue and controls large swaths of territory in a region that has the highest cocaine production in the world. Their corrupt network of enabling government officials and money-laundering businesspeople remains intact. Colombian officials announced that Otoniel will be extradited to the U.S. However, simply charging him as a “narco kingpin” minimizes the much more serious charges that he should face in Colombia. And it helps to launder the reputation of both the Colombian and American governments.
By Brian Saady 25 Apr, 2021
A look at Tesla's relationship with commodities giant, Glencore, and its partner, Dan Gertler.
By Brian Saady 03 Jul, 2020
The U.S. government supports this narco regime for geopolitical reasons.
By Brian Saady 11 Mar, 2019
A huge victory against government abuses of power--the Supreme Court limited civil asset forfeiture.
More Posts
Share by: