The end of the Honduran crisis?
Details remain sketchy, and may not be entirely ironed out. But the New York Times has the following:
“The accord allows a vote in Congress on Zelaya’s possible restitution with the prior approval of the Supreme Court,” Mr. Micheletti said in televised comments late Thursday. “This is a significant concession on the part of our government.” “We are satisfied,” Mr. Zelaya said, according to Reuters. “We are optimistic that my reinstatement is imminent.”
La Prensa reports that the agreement consists of the following points. Other outlets have said the negotiators will meet again today, but it is not clear if the points themselves are not set or if it is just a matter of settling the logistics. Here is a quick translation:
1- La creación de un gobierno de unidad y reconciliación nacional.
The creation of a national reconciliation and unity government.
2- Rechazo a la amnistía delitos políticos, y demoratoria de acciones procesos penales.
Rejection of an amnesty for political crimes, and delay for penal processes.
3- Renunciar a una convocatoria a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente o a reformar la Constitución en los artículos constitucionales irreformables.
Reject the convocation of a National Constitutional Assembly or reform of the unreformable constitutional articles.
4. Reconocer y apoyar las elecciones generales y el traspaso de Gobierno.
Recognize and support the general elections and the transfer of Government.
5- La transferencia de autoridad sobre las Fuerzas Armadas al Tribunal Supremo Electoral.
Transfer of authority over the Armed Forces to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal.
6- La creación de una comisión de verificación para hacer cumplir los puntos del acuerdo.
Creation of a commission of verification to ensure compliance with the points of the accord.
7- La formación de una comisión de la verdad para investigar los sucesos antes, durante y después del 28 de junio de 2009.
The formation of a truth commission to investigate the events before, during, and after June 28, 2009.
8- Solicitar a la comunidad internacional la normalización de las relaciones internacionales con nuestro país.
Request from the international community normalization of international relations with our country.
Support the proposal that permits a vote in the National Congress with previous judgment from the Supreme Court to make the Executive Power retroactive to before June 28.
This is obviously a huge breakthrough. By far the most important element is that both sides are claiming victory. I would really like to know what the U.S. delegation said.
28 comments:
So the opinion of the other Honduran institutions matters after all? Or is it only when they agree with Zelaya supporters?
If Congress somehow decides Zelaya can't return, everyone will be OK with that?
The proposal for Congress to vote was put forward by Zelaya's negotiators some time ago.
Reviewing the agreements reached as of October 15 shows that the only change is the vote on Zelaya's restitution, the (crucial) step. The provision for the judgment of the Executive Power being retroactive to June 28 is the legal reversal of the coup -- the recognition that Micheletti was never the legitimate president.
National Party powers that be understand that Lobo's election will not be recognized internationally unless Congress approves the restitution. So, no, I don't think Pepe Lobo will be OK with it if Congress rejects it.
Greg: I would really like to know what the U.S. delegation said.
I would really like to know why they couldn't have said it in July.
"So the opinion of the other Honduran institutions matters after all? Or is it only when they agree with Zelaya supporters?
If Congress somehow decides Zelaya can't return, everyone will be OK with that?"
@Anonymous: Since the meaning of democracy is not within your intellect, let me remind you that "Zelaya supporters" are most probably most of the people of Honduras, i.e. - that 70-80% of the population who are poor and cannot access the internet to counter your fallacious assertions. "Zelaya supporters" have a say as well as "Micheletti" supporters, because that's what a democracy is about. Can you conceive that, are you OK with that?
The outcome is not guaranteed. From Bloomberg:
Chile, Brazil and the European Union were among governments that aid the agreement would allow a democratic solution to the crisis. Zelaya and acting Honduran President Roberto Micheletti vowed to respect the results of the vote, which hasn’t been scheduled, said Thomas Shannon, the assistant U.S. secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs.
“I can assure you that both sides are reaching out to members of Congress right now in trying to build levels of political support that will favor the outcome that each of them would prefer,” Shannon told reporters today in Tegucigalpa.
Zelaya has agreed to accept what Congress decides. Will he and his supporters really accept it if Congress does not reinstate him?
Will he and his supporters really accept it if Congress does not reinstate him?
Of course his supporters wouldn't accept that. The nature of politics, Gabriel, is that you fight until politicians feel little choice but to vote in your side's favor.
I don't think you really understand the nature of politics, though.
If anyone's interested, the signed Guaymuras Accord was scanned and posted to La Gringa's blog yesterday.
The signatories agreed that the nature/disposition of the Reconciliation Government should be determined by November 5 by the National Congress, in consultation with other "pertinent entities", such as the Supreme Court.
The Accord does not/not guarantee the reinstatement of Zelaya as President, but it does guarantee that there will be no more attempts to change the Constitution, and that a duly elected - and new - Government of Honduras will take office next January..
Well, as to why it wasn't said in July, perhaps neither side was listening.
Micheletti reports getting tired of hearing the word "restitution" in every phone call with Hilary. An apt metaphor. He gambled that the US administration would relent from either disinterest or Republican pressures. He lost the bet.
Zelaya's side realized that the agenda of ALBA was not necessarily his agenda and agreed to pursue the the best deal out there on the counsel of OAS members and the international community. The silence of Chavez et al. is deafening.
The US intervention was successful in the sense that Honduran people had tired of the standoff and were facing reality after 5 months. No evidence yet of a substantially changed US message-- just the timing.
Zelaya's side realized that the agenda of ALBA was not necessarily his agenda
That's a very wishful interpretation on your part. The accord doesn't have diddly squat to do with Zelaya's feelings about ALBA. The accord is rooted in the fact that, under the circumstances, Zelaya had limited options.
Professor Know-it-all,
How dare you call another poster "retarded," when you yourself are incapable of reading my words? I said nothing about his "feelings" and something about his realization of his limited options. Zelaya can be as pro-ALBA as he wants, but he can't do anything about the fact that in order to return to the office he had to accept conditions as well as the upcoming elections. Hugo and his acolytes can spout all the rhetoric they want about what a victory this is, but it is plainly not what they wanted. The congress and a new president will soon take care of Honduras' participation in ALBA. That is wishful thinking.
I said nothing about his "feelings" and something about his realization of his limited options.
No, that's not what you said. What you said is: "Zelaya's side realized that the agenda of ALBA was not necessarily his agenda..."
The statement is totally misleading. All you're really saying is that the Micheletti camp had a lot of bargaining leverage over the eventual settlement, but you wrap the point up in a totally misleading language.
Hitler had a lot of bargaining leverage over Europe during the Munich settlement too. Would it have been an ethical position for someone to rub Hitler's power in the face of the Czechs, or the French, or the British in 1938? I don't think so.
Ethically speaking, your points are completely degenerate.
No, professor. In one paragraph I described how Zelaya's options were limited by the proposed settlement. In another how Michelettis were limited. I repeat he was tired of hearing the US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say "restitution" into a phone. In this case, when I suggest it is an apt metaphor, I am saying Micheletti was limited by the pressures of the US, Hondurans and international community too.
The only ethically challenged thing on this board is how you assume to be of superior intellect than everyone else when you're just a predictable leftist who engages in straw man arguments and assumes the worst about people who think for themselves. One of the main goals of the coup was to separate Honduras from ALBA and it may have succeeded. We shall see. But, surely, even Hugo himself does not believe this was Munich.
Or to put this in terms that anonymous might better understand, his essential position seems to be: "Ha ha, the Micheletti camp has more power."
If that's your point, you're not saying anything that any of us don't already know.
Where the logical fallacy comes in is when you try to suggest that the Micheletti camp's power somehow legitimizes the monstrosities that it has imposed upon the Honduran people.
But, surely, even Hugo himself does not believe this was Munich.
The point about Munich is that you routinely engage in basic logical fallacies, not that Micheletti is somehow comparable to Hitler.
To rub it in the face of others that the Micheletti camp had the brute power necessary to force a shitty settlement upon Honduras is not an argument in favor of the settlement. For you to think that that actually qualifies as an argument is mind-boggling.
"Where the logical fallacy comes in is when you try to suggest that the Micheletti camp's power somehow legitimizes the monstrosities that it has imposed upon the Honduran people."
Give the logical fallacy a name, professor know-it-all. If you don't know what one is , use wikipedia. My view isn't a logical fallacy as I don't share your warped ideology. I am not legitimizing Micheletti's actions. It was a coup and I support liberal democracy. I condemn military coups. However, clipping the wings of Hugo Chavez's interventionism is a perfectly legitimate thing for the international system to do. I will never support the perversions of democracy happening in ALBA countries; an incestuous pederast for President of Nicaragua who who came to power in a bogus alliance with the far right and the Catholic church; a golpista dictator in Venezuela who is drunk on oil money and represses an independent press; and a fifty year old communist dictatorship that that steals the wages of the workers and refuses to allow them to leave the island. It is a lovely plan for social and economic bankruptcy. If I were Honduran I might be pleased that this alliance of thugs has lost influence in my country.
As for Munich, your ethical comparison is stupid. Here MIcheletti is losing power. The conservative elements of Honduras have sacrificed him up after weighing the costs. I support the right of Hondurans of all political tendencies to make up their own minds about their leaders, alliances and socio-economic model. This necessitates an end to Micheletti's stubborn repression. While the November 29 elections will not be perfect, they are a damn sight better than the coup and standoff. Zelaya gets to save some face and his allies can regroup to try again in four years. The US diplomatic effort--working with allies and ignoring pressures from both Republicans at home and ALBA abroad-- suits me just fine. Hence, no logical fallacy, profe, just the difference in ideology and a willingness to face stubborn facts. ALBA lost. The liberal international system won. Spare me your your saccharine morality.
clipping the wings of Hugo Chavez's interventionism is a perfectly legitimate thing for the international system to do.
The logical fallacies abound. This has nothing to do with Chavez's so-called "interventionism." To forcibly oust a democratically-elected president because some folks didn't like a non-binding referendum on whether to reform the constitution is an act that needs to judged on the basis some set of political standards, not on the basis of whether you like or dislike the people with whom Zelaya associates.
To make logical arguments requires that you be able to demonstrate the standards by which you operate. To imply that a democratically-elected leader should be subject to a coup on the basis of whether you like or dislike that leader's political allies is indicative of a person who operates according to no real standards at all.
First of all, Zelaya is no democratically- elected prince. He insisted, against the rule of law, on continuing the farce of a referendum to spark a crisis with the direct support of his foreign allies. Secondly, he illegally fired the head of the armed forces for following the legal rulings of the Honduran court. Still, none of this justifies the coup. It should have been settled in other ways. And yet, as an illiterate pedant, you still say I justified the coup.
The coup was not justified by the cutting of the cords with ALBA. Period. However, in trying to solve a difficult diplomatic problem, the resulting benefit for the US and its allies of marginalizing ALBA is a legitimate goal. If Hugo Chavez had played an integral role in resolving the standoff, you bet he would have furthered his interests at the expense of the United States.
When Venezuela and the ALBA countries feel free to intervene all over Latin America the liberal international system led by the US has every right to stop the spread of its malfeasance. It is called mutual self-defense. It is a bedrock principle underlying the UN and OAS charters. So, there is your principle, professor know-it-all.
as an illiterate pedant, you still say I justified the coup.
It is crystal clear that you're engaging in back-door apologetics for a coup. Notice how you constantly contradict yourself. One minute you're saying that you're a liberal democrat who opposes coups. The next minute you're saying that the outcome of this coup is positive because it supposedly "clips the wings" of big bad Hugo. In reality, I think you're engaging in a lot of wishful thinking here; the Honduran fiasco may actually help the Latin American left to portray the Latin American right as deeply anti-democratic. But that's really beside the point. The more important point is that you're speaking out of two sides of your mouth. You can't say that you oppose the coup but like its results. That's a contradiction in terms. If you oppose coups, then you can't possibly say that you're happy that Honduras' coup leaders have essentially been appeased. For anybody who seriously opposes coups, they would not be happy with the precedent that coup leaders will get the kid-glove treatment. That won't discourage future coups.
So I think I can basically rest my case now that you have yet to demonstrate that you operate according to any real set of standards.
How about more than a binary left/right division in your supposedly educated mind. There is a another group of people of a liberal disposition who reject the canards of extreme left and right. Maybe they embrace orderly progress; transparency; free press, private property; rule of law; individual rights; separation of powers; social mobility; minority rights and religious freedom. Most of us believe government, acting within its means, should help fulfill the promise of a better life for all citizens by providing social services such as education and health care.
As for back-door apologetics comment, I will shed no tears that Micheletti and Zelaya have lost influence through this process led by Arias, Insulza and Shannon. I don't think any future Latin American golpistas will count on US help unless a DeMint is president or Cuban scientific socialism is the alternative. Obama managed it well.
"The more important point is that you're speaking out of two sides of your mouth. You can't say that you oppose the coup but like its results. That's a contradiction in terms."
Sort of like how Chavez became increasingly popular after his failed coup and exploited popular dissatisfaction with the Venezuelan government to win an election a few years later. I haven't noticed many of your principled tribe rejecting this "dangerous" precedent. You are the hypocrite, professor know-it-all.
I don't think any future Latin American golpistas will count on US help unless a DeMint is president...
Unfortunately, the possibility that someone like Demint could be president is never out of the cards in the United States.
Sort of like how Chavez became increasingly popular after his failed coup and exploited popular dissatisfaction with the Venezuelan government to win an election a few years later.
The difference is that Chavez and his co-conspirators spent some years in prison for the insurrection they carried out. So, at least in that case, you cannot say there was impunity for their actions.
In contrast, the Honduran settlement will probably ensure that Roberto Micheletti and Romeo Vasquez won't be prosecuted for their actions. And there lies the problem, for the precedent that coups will go unpunished is a very dangerous one.
I don't think any future Latin American golpistas will count on US help unless a DeMint is president...
Oh, and one other thing. Even if prospective Latin American golpistas can't count on U.S. help, this and other cases suggest that such golpistas can count on a lot of dithering and equivocation from the United States.
"The difference is that Chavez and his co-conspirators spent some years in prison for the insurrection they carried out. So, at least in that case, you cannot say there was impunity for their actions."
Yes, but if you had been asked at the time you, as a Chavez supporter, would have said he was imprisoned unjustly by a neocolonial conspiracy directed by the CIA. And certainly, as someone who understands the details of his imprisonment, you can't say that it was designed to prevent another coup. It ws pretty damn close to impunity. He was treated with kid gloves by the system as he was allowed to continue to organize his movement. He was never banned from future political activity upon his early release from a luxury jail.
"In contrast, the Honduran settlement will probably ensure that Roberto Micheletti and Romeo Vasquez won't be prosecuted for their actions. And there lies the problem, for the precedent that coups will go unpunished is a very dangerous one."
This is potentially a very dangerous precedent. However, it is mitigated by the interventionism of the OAS and the US. The international system is trying to prevent the precedent from having any lasting impact. The peaceful solution may not bring about "justice" in any individual case, but it does provide for internationally supervised elections only five months after the coup. That is quite a reversal given the history of Latin America. Likewise, I suspect that Zelaya will never be charged with crimes either.
Was it dithering and equivocation on the part of the US? Maybe in part. But it also was was purposeful diplomacy trying to allow Latin Americans to resolve the crisis and for the US to engage in a way that was more constructive and less unilateral than in past eras. So Obama's folks listened to both sides and worked for a solution. This seems to be a common theme of successful mediation efforts.
Yes, but if you had been asked at the time you, as a Chavez supporter, would have said he was imprisoned unjustly by a neocolonial conspiracy directed by the CIA.
How could you possibly know what I would have said? Your caricatures are rather silly. There are plenty of people on the left who are wary of coups led by military officers, so you couldn't have any inkling as to what I would have said in 1992.
Notice how you attempt to conflate what a person thinks of Chavez's governance to how he or she would have viewed a coup led by a mid-level officer in 1992. Those are two separate issues.
And certainly, as someone who understands the details of his imprisonment, you can't say that it was designed to prevent another coup.
Of course it was designed to prevent another insurrection. It didn't succeed in preventing another such insurrection later that year, but there is no doubt that the purpose of imprisoning Chavez and his co-conspirators was to prevent another such insurrection from occurring. That much is elementary.
It ws pretty damn close to impunity.
Relative to what? How many years has Pedro Carmona spent behind bars (for leading a coup)? How many years will Roberto Micheletti and Romeo Vasquez spend behind bars (for leading a coup)?
Are we to suppose that you consider Chavez's punishment insufficient on principle? If so, then surely we would expect you to scream to high heaven about the fact that Pedro Carmona hasn't spent a month in prison. Where exactly is your righteous indignation about Carmona? How come I've yet to hear you lament that Roberto Micheletti and Romeo Vasquez will probably get off scott-free?
He was never banned from future political activity upon his early release from a luxury jail.
No, you're wrong. Chavez was not put in a luxury jail. The reason that Chavez was able to reenter politics is not because the Venezuelan political establishment wanted it to be so but rather because Chavez captured the imagination of millions of poor Venezuelans. The rest is history.
Professor Know-it-all, Of course, literally, I do not need to now what you would have said in 1992 as it is apparent from your comments everyday. And yes, if you talk about grave consequences to coups, Hugo Chavez's current legitimacy as a critic of coups, as well as his close friendship with communist Cuba, gets called into question. The only thing conflating is your self-importance as an "analyst" and your partisan ends.
Chavez was in San Carlos prison in central Caracas, imprisoned in a separate wing with fellow officers, allowed every manner of visitor, allowed to read, study and organize his movement, participate by communicating with leaders of an attempted coup, protected both within and without by sympathetic military leaders and the privately owned press (no irony there), and was able to negotiate the terms of his release. This was hardly the condition of an everyday Venezuelan prisoner. If the then government attempted to end impunity with this punishment, it surely was a miserable failure in conception and execution. Ciao, Profe. I'm done.
if you talk about grave consequences to coups, Hugo Chavez's current legitimacy as a critic of coups, as well as his close friendship with communist Cuba, gets called into question
The statement above is written so poorly that I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, but notice how you change the subject. The issue at hand is not whether you or I think Chavez is a legitimate critic of coups. The issue at hand is whether you have any real standards. Since you failed to even address the issue, I'll just repeat what I wrote before until such time as you answer the questions squarely.
Are we to suppose that you consider Chavez's punishment insufficient on principle? If so, then surely we would expect you to scream to high heaven about the fact that Pedro Carmona hasn't spent a month in prison. Where exactly is your righteous indignation about Carmona? How come I've yet to hear you lament that Roberto Micheletti and Romeo Vasquez will probably get off scott-free?
"Scot-free" is from Olde English. It means free from royal tax.
"Scot-free" is from Olde English. It means free from royal tax.
Thank you for the correct spelling of "scot-free." Now try answering the questions.
Post a Comment