Honduras negotations
Micheletti's side said they would accept Zelaya's return only if he would go to trial (see the PDF here). Since they refer to him as "Señor" they would not accept him returning as president. It is not clear how they would deal with the fact that they refused to put him on trial before the coup and instead illegally exiled him.
Meanwhile, Zelaya gave an interview to a Brazilian reporter (see the original here in Portuguese) saying that he would not stop the process of pushing for constitutional change.
Such public declarations only reflect how negotiations function.
One point that no one mentions, yet is critical to everything, is what the military leadership thinks. Right now, I bet Micheletti has a pretty good sense of that, but few outside a small circle does. It matters a lot.
14 comments:
Meanwhile, Zelaya gave an interview to a Brazilian reporter (see the original here in Portuguese) saying that he would not stop the process of pushing for constitutional change.
But there's no transcript of an actual interview there, so we can't really tell what Zelaya said. It's impossible to tell --on the basis of a couple of quotes-- whether statements are being taken out of context.
What I cannot fathom is how amending the constitution congruent with popular will is deemed in some way to be illegit. What's up with that?
And, my god, indeed, the US aligned military have to be comfy with following the constitution and the international charters (that allow at least a chance that the majority of citizens can have some say in the systems under which they are governed).
This undemocratic impulse has been deeply internalized by the intellectual cowards that frame the parameters of debate in our universities and in most of the commercial media.
These larger undemocratic forces allow for fundamentally flawed frames and parameters to be constructed and easily policed by the thought-slaves.
What I cannot fathom is how amending the constitution congruent with popular will is deemed in some way to be illegit. What's up with that?
I completely agree with you that it's not illegit, but this isn't a question of right or wrong. This is a question of power. Zelaya's negotiators will give up certain things at the bargaining table because they're afraid that they lack the power to restore Zelaya in any other way. The relations of power are an unfortunate fact of all political life.
No, irrespective of whether you like it, or think it legit, or mistake it as a question of power, it remains a question of law. The Honduran institutions repeatedly ruled against his proposal, he went ahead anyway and now he is in exile. To think that on the eve of achieving a diplomatic breakthrough he still brings this up calls into question whether he wants a solution or just wants to be a populist martyr.
I love how you guys subject source materials to the nth degree of suspicion when they deliver inconvenient facts. While the propaganda from Telesur or Granma get a pass. Ideology has trumped evidence once again.
Zelaya was referring to his private efforts as a citizen, supporting a Constitutional referendum, following the end of his term. There is nothing to stop him from doing so. The referendum is not going to be on the November ballot, even if Zelaya returns as a fully empowered President. Congress would need to approve such a thing... so this is an empty point meant to divert attention.
The golpistas have shown clearly they have no interest in dialogue, reconciliation or peace. Those who predicted a failure in talks perceived this correctly from the get go. These talks have wasted valuable time and resulted in the Micheletti Government being treated internationally on the same level (higher?) than the elected President of Honduras. These are 2 huge gifts for aggression, delivered by the USA. Meanwhile, any US pressure must have been weak. We will see if there are any consequences for this intransigence.
It does not appear likely. The US statement does not have one negative word to say about the golpistas. It attempts to share the blame and responsibility equally among both parties. It also appears to signal an end to US efforts and a disapproval of any international attempts.
And people are wondering why ALBA is talking about needing a NATO-like military force.
I've translated the Micheletti proposal and commented on it for anyone interested; there is a lot to contextualize here that will only be intelligible to Honduran audiences; to use the language of my profession, this is highly coded speech.
http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/07/micheletti-counter-proposal-rant.html
I also added a comment to my previous post http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/07/seven-points-of-arias-plan-translation.html
with a paraphrase of the Portugese quotes; will go now and add a translation, while cautioning that my Portugese is rougher than my Spanish. Key point is that he was responding to a reporter's question (which is not given verbatim), he did not say he would pursue the referendum in November which he was asked to forswear, he said he would continue to advocate for constitutional reform because it is the will of the people. Also to note: this interview took place before he agreed to Arias' plan.
And, interestingly, the Micheletti counter-plan doesn't include any mention of swearing off the referendum. Not so important in the end.
No, irrespective of whether you like it, or think it legit, or mistake it as a question of power, it remains a question of law.
Bullshit. There's nothing legal about the coup leaders' decision to summarily depose a democratically-elected president. There's nothing legal about summarily shutting down television and radio stations. This doesn't have diddly squat to do with the law. It has to do with the fact that the military high command in Honduras took the side of Micheletti and company. In other words, it all comes down to power.
To think that on the eve of achieving a diplomatic breakthrough he still brings this up calls into question whether he wants a solution or just wants to be a populist martyr.
Oscar Arias calls bullshit on that one too.
"The Zelaya delegation fully accepted my proposal, but not that of Mr. Roberto Micheletti," Arias said, referring to the interim president sworn in by congress after the June 28 coup.
I haven't seen the Arias statement but have seen these comments from Saturday night. He says one thing, an advisor backtracks for him. He says one thing in Managua, and another to a Brazilian newspaper. His words don't have quite the credibility you give them.
TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya will not accept any leaders of the June 28 coup that ousted him forming part of an eventual unity government, a close adviser said on Saturday in an apparent step back from an earlier comment by Zelaya.
"The president can talk about a reconciliation government, but not one that includes people who took part in the coup," Allan Fajardo, a close adviser accompanying Zelaya in Managua told Reuters by telephone. "There can be no coupmongers."
He said Zelaya also agreed with the proposal that he be reinstated to serve out the rest of his term, but that other proposals by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias were still subject to negotiation.
Zelaya said earlier on Saturday he agreed with a proposal by mediator Costa Rica to form a national unity government, telling Radio Globo, "We agree with it, but only as long as all the powers of the state are integrated into it."
I haven't seen the Arias statement
Well, then watch it, Neville.
Here it is.
Your favorite Central American leader --the guy whom you lauded for being "mild-mannered"-- says "the Zelaya delegation fully accepted my proposal..."
There it is, right in front of your fuckin' face, but you're gonna keep makin' excuses for a bunch o' slimy golpistas.
You disgust me.
Wow, very intellectual of you! Call names and drop f-bombs. From my experience that kind of manifest defensiveness means my critique of your boy Zelaya strikes close to home.
Thanks for the link.
From my experience that kind of manifest defensiveness means my critique of your boy Zelaya strikes close to home.
No, actually, I find the apologists for right-wing coups to be disgusting people. If you actually knew something about Latin American history, you might understand.
Being an apologist of a coup is somewhat different than to recognize that Zelaya DID break the law - more than once. It doesn't ecxuce him being removed but you critisize anybody speaking against Zelaya and noticing that he's NOT an indidivual respective of democracy. You're right - there's nothing illigit in the coup. But you seem to forget or are not willing to admit that breaking the laws passed by congress and rullings of SC by Zelaya WAS ILLIGIT. Don't get me wrong - removing him from power (in the way it was done) was far worse than what he did, but you can't pretend that he didn't do antything.
Also, in the end you've finally agreed that The relations of power are an unfortunate fact of all political life. You do recognize the realities then? Congratulations.
Being an apologist of a coup is somewhat different than to recognize that Zelaya DID break the law
Apparently you haven't seen how anonymous' talking points have degenerated into outright apologetics for a coup. First he tells us how wonderful Arias is, and how wonderful these negotiations are. Then, when Arias lays down seven conditions and Zelaya AGREES to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, anonymous suddenly starts finding new excuses for the coup leaders' rejection of the terms.
People who make excuses for this coup are nothing more than accomplices to the coup. You might want to keep that in mind, Marcin.
Well, it is obvious that any law that makes it illegal to consult the population as to whether they support amending a countries laws is undemocratic in a fundamental sense.
Aside from that, the institutions that supported the coup are illegitimate--the coup government is illegal. Thepost facto rationalizations point up a deeper undemocratic ethos that undergirds the ecocidal fanatics in their rampage against humanity and life in general.
Post a Comment