Honduras Extends Curfew After Zelaya Returns

Should Zelaya be reinstated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 64.3%
  • No

    Votes: 5 35.7%

  • Total voters
    14

Aleenik

Deity
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
2,203
Location
France
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,553424,00.html?test=latestnews

Well, I'm not sure what to think of this. All I can say is I hope there isn't a lot of people hurt due to protesting, violent crackdowns on opposition, and such.

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Deposed President Manuel Zelaya made a dramatic return to Honduras' capital Monday, taking shelter from arrest at Brazil's embassy and calling for negotiations with the leaders who forced him from the country at gunpoint.

The interim government initially ordered a 15-hour curfew, but then extended it to a 26-hour shutdown of the capital, but thousands of Zelaya supporters ignored the decree and remained outside the embassy, dancing and cheering.

Others in the capital rushed home, lining up at bus stands and frantically looking for taxis. Electricity was cut off for hours at a time on the block housing the embassy and in areas of Tegucigalpa where news media offices are located — something that happened the day of the coup that ousted the leftist leader.

Security Vice Minister Mario Perdomo said checkpoints were being set up on highways leading to the capital to keep out Zelaya's supporters from other regions, to "stop those people coming to start trouble." Later, Defense Minister Lionel Sevilla said all flights to Tegucigalpa had been suspended indefinitely.

Without giving any specifics, Zelaya said he snuck into the country by traveling for 15 hours overland in a series of vehicles — pulling off a homecoming that created a sharp new challenge for the interim government that had threatened repeatedly to throw him in jail if he returned.

Chants of "Yes we could! Yes we could!" bellowed from the crowd outside the Brazilian Embassy.

Zelaya told The Associated Press that he was trying to establish contact with the interim government to start negotiations on a solution to the standoff that started when soldiers flew him out of the country June 28.

"As of now, we are beginning to seek dialogue," he said by telephone, though he gave few details. Talks moderated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias have been stalled for weeks over the interim government's refusal to accept Zelaya's reinstatement.

He also summoned his countrymen to come to the capital for peaceful protests and urged the army to avoid attacking his supporters.

"It is the moment of reconciliation," he said.

The government of interim President Roberto Micheletti, who took power after Zelaya's ouster and has promised to step aside following a presidential election scheduled for November, said the curfew would continue until 6 p.m. (0000 GMT) Tuesday. It first declared a curfew running from 4 p.m. Monday until 7 a.m. Tuesday.

The government said in a statement the army and police were ready to "guarantee the safety of people."

The shifting orders reflected the surprise of Zelaya's arrival, which caught the interim government off guard. Only minutes before he appeared publicly at the embassy, officials said reports of his return were a lie.

Zelaya's presence could revive the large demonstrations that disrupted the capital following the coup and threatens to overshadow the presidential election campaign.

Teachers union leader Eulogio Chavez announced that the country's 60,000 educators would go on strike indefinitely Tuesday to back Zelaya's demand to be reinstated.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged both sides to look for a peaceful solution to the crisis.

"It is imperative that dialogue begin, that there be a channel of communication between President Zelaya and the de facto regime in Honduras," Rodham Clinton told reporters on the sidelines of the annual U.N. General Assembly session in New York.

The U.S. State Department announced Sept. 4 that it would not recognize results of the presidential vote under current conditions. The coup has shaken up Washington's relations with Honduras, traditionally one of its strongest allies in Central America.

The secretary general of the Organization of American States, Jose Miguel Insulza, called for calm and warned Honduran officials to avoid any violation of the Brazilian diplomatic mission. "They should be responsible for the safety of president Zelaya and the Embassy of Brazil," he said.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorin said neither his country nor the OAS had any role in Zelaya's journey before taking him in.

"We hope this opens a new stage in negotiations," Amorin said. He also warned: "If something happens to Zelaya or our embassy it would be a violation of international law," which bars host countries from arresting people inside diplomatic missions.

Honduras' Foreign Relations Department criticized Brazil, saying it was violating international law by "allowing Zelaya, a fugitive of Honduran justice, to make public calls to insurrection and political mobilization from its headquarters."

Micheletti urged Brazil in a nationwide radio address to turn Zelaya over to Honduran authorities.

In the days following the coup, at least two of the thousands of demonstrators who took to the streets were killed during clashes with security forces. Thousands of other Hondurans demonstrated in favor of the coup.

The country's Congress and courts, alarmed by Zelaya's political shift into a close alliance with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuba, backed Zelaya's removal.

He was arrested on orders of the Supreme Court on charges of treason and abuse of power for ignoring court orders against holding a popular referendum on reforming the constitution.

Micheletti said Zelaya sought to remove a ban on re-election — grounds for immediate removal from office under the Honduran constitution. Zelaya denies any such plan.

International leaders were almost unanimously against the armed removal of the president, alarmed that it could return Latin America to a bygone era of coups and instability. The United States, European Union and other agencies have cut aid to Honduras to press for his return.

Zelaya said he had "evaded a thousand obstacles" to return, traveling 15 hours by land in different vehicles. He declined to give specifics on who helped him cross the border, saying that he didn't want to jeopardize their safety.

His staunch supporter, Chavez, described the journey: "President Manuel Zelaya, along with four companions, traveled for two days overland, crossing mountains and rivers, risking their lives. They have made it to Honduras."

Sevilla, the defense minister, told reporters that Zelaya allegedly entered Honduras from Nicaragua in a car licensed in a South American nation that "is not Venezuela."

If the interim administration attempts to imprison Zelaya, protesters who have demonstrated against his ouster could turn violent, said Vicki Gass at the Washington Office on Latin America.

"There's a saying about Honduras that people can argue in the morning and have dinner in the evening, but I'm not sure this will happen in this case," said Gass. "It's been 86 days since the coup. Something had to break and this might be it."
 
Probably a bit of a rash move, but at least it will pressure the military regime to reinstate democracy an the democratically elected leader, who was wrongfully ousted.
 
Ballsy and clever. It's good, patient, calculated brinkmanship. It makes the paranoid regime look ridiculous, cements the image of the coupsters as buffoons and alienates their supporters (Micheletti attacking the "media terrorism" of sources reporting the rumours, even pro-coup sources), personally encourages and inspires hundreds of thousands of supporters with the idea that if he can risk his safety, so can we.

I wonder how much coordination this had from the OAS and internal resistance, given that the US State Department confirmed he was there while the Honduran government was still denying it. The choice of powerful Brazil's embassy as a refuge can't have been an accident.

Hopefully the coupsters choose flight, not fight.
 
I like how they are demanding he hands himself over, considering they forced him out of the country at gunpoint
 
Brazilian diplomacy is one of the most embarassing components of the embarassing rule of Lula. I ask once again what good does the international community expect to achieve by not recognising the fully democratic elections that Honduras want to host next month, for which they invited international observers?

What good will be achieved by re-instating a president with only a couple of months left of rule (though he certainly will try to extend it), a president who disregarded Congress and the Supreme Court, who tried to illegally interfer in the command structure of the Armed Forces? A president who was opposed by the overwhelming majority of Hondurans, a buffoon in a cowboy dress?
 
Probably a bit of a rash move, but at least it will pressure the military regime to reinstate democracy an the democratically elected leader, who was wrongfully ousted.

The military has never been and is not in charge of Hondurous. You can have as many issues with the current government as you want, but it is not a military dictatorship in any fashion.
 
My apologies- I meant to say the regime installed by the military coup. Which, of course, would be in no way favourably biased towards the military in its decision making. Nope, the military in Honduras has no say in things whatsoever. ;)
 
I have seven reasons why not, Luiz.

1. The lack of open political space because of all that repression means that there's not the conditions to conduct free and fair elections. Campaigning would be severely crimped, potentially marred by violence, and quite possibly impossible. I mean, Jesus, even Cuba holds regular "elections".

2. It sets a shocking precedent for future coup situations. We don't want to be encouraging the idea that seizure of power by militaries or whoever else is okay if it only happens for a few months.

3. Democracy is more than just elections. Giving the coupsters a free pass because they are going to hold elections does nothing to ensure that the human rights abuses, jailing of political prisoners and violations of freedom of speech and the press are ended, investigated and punished, instead of being simply carried-over and perpetuated. If anything, you're perpetuating the idea that these things are okay behaviour.

4. Internal legitimacy would not exist. Unlike in other democratic transitions like Spain or Chile or Indonesia, you would not have the majority of internal actors making pacts and accepting the legitimacy of the democratic process. These require a lot of necessary compromises in order to satisfy various actors. You can't have democracy if people don't believe in and support the structures and outcomes of that democracy. You'd simply be legitimising what the coupsters did by allowing them to decide their own exit strategy without compromising at all.

5. Given this, it wouldn't actually fix the situation. They would be almost universally regarded as a farce and a figleaf and would do nothing but replace one illegitimate, unrecognised government with another. You wouldn't be legitimising a new government going forward - this government would have no mandate. All the domestic and international negotiations and diplomatic isolation would simply transfer to a new de facto government. Nobody internationally has said they will recognise elections held on the coupsters' terms, Zelaya and supporters certainly wouldn't. It wouldn't solve anything.

6. Acknowledgement that what happened in Honduras was not legitimate or democratic needs to be made. Military impunity needs to be called to account.

7. The best way to make those elections happen and be legitimate is to restore democracy, to return power to Zelaya, and let elections happen the normal way. Your sneaky claim that "he certainly will try to extend it" is an attempt to shore up an utterly indefensible position by implying that democracy is somehow more likely to result if it's not restored... and it's utter bollocks.

Right from the start, pre-coup, pre-constitutional crisis, Zelaya has said repeatedly that he would not and cannot run again because that would break the constitution - this is direct quotes from him which I've posted before from interviews and you've read: Even if voting on forming a constitutional convention had been allowed, even if that vote succeeded, and even if the resulting constitutional convention's reforms allowed future presidents a second term, and even if those reforms were passed, this would occur long after Zelaya was gone and not apply retroactively.
 
My apologies- I meant to say the regime installed by the military coup. Which, of course, would be in no way favourably biased towards the military in its decision making. Nope, the military in Honduras has no say in things whatsoever.

Still not correct. The military never acted on its own initiative (in fact it specifically deferred to the supreme court which ruled in its favor, the root cause of all this). It carried out orders initiated and dictated to it by the Congress and the Supreme Court.

Now, you may believe (erronously) that those civilian branches of government were in error, but either way the military was not the ring leader. And no, the military did not put the current government in place, the Congress did that.
 
I like how they are demanding he hands himself over, considering they forced him out of the country at gunpoint

Anyone care to comment on this? Seems sort of bizarre, doesn't it? that they kicked him out instead of trying him, and now that he's back, after they ordered him not to return, they want him handed over?
 
Oh, also:

8. Refusing to recognise elections held by the coupsters on their terms is one of the best bits of leverage the international community has to put pressure on, force the situation to a head, and cause them to lose power.
 
Still not correct. The military never acted on its own initiative (in fact it specifically deferred to the supreme court which ruled in its favor, the root cause of all this). It carried out orders initiated and dictated to it by the Congress and the Supreme Court.

Now, you may believe (erronously) that those civilian branches of government were in error, but either way the military was not the ring leader. And no, the military did not put the current government in place, the Congress did that.

The military deposed the elected executive. That is a military coup. It doesn't matter who ordered it, if they were successful in using the military as a tool with which to subjugate the executive rule, then it is a military coup. And for that matter, if they were able to order the military around as their attack dog, then obviously the military is an intrinsic part of the regime.
 
Anyone care to comment on this? Seems sort of bizarre, doesn't it? that they kicked him out instead of trying him, and now that he's back, after they ordered him not to return, they want him handed over?

I am sure they would be just as happy if he just left the country again. However, violating the exile orders of the two civilian branches of government not in breach of the constitution should make him subject to arrest for additional crimes.
 
Anyone care to comment on this? Seems sort of bizarre, doesn't it? that they kicked him out instead of trying him, and now that he's back, after they ordered him not to return, they want him handed over?

I wouldn't say it's hypocrisy, or anything, seeing as that is the obvious thing to do- if you contravene the punishment of exile they aren't just going to try and exile you again, there will be a more severe punishment. But it does make the current regime look like a right bunch of fools.
 
I am sure they would be just as happy if he just left the country again. However, violating the exile orders of the two civilian branches of government not in breach of the constitution should make him subject to arrest for additional crimes.

Would you like to speculate on why they have gone from not trying him, to kicking him out, to ordering him to stay out, to ordering him to hand himself over for trial? Surely, if he was guilty of all the 'crimes' you have said he is, the thing to do would have been just to try him in the first place?
 
The military deposed the elected executive. That is a military coup.

No, its not. A military coups means the military is in charge. If they had used some civilian police force would you call it a "police coups?" The entire thing was carried out by and on the authority of the Congress and the Supreme Court. If you insist on calling it a coup (and there is a good arguement for it, though not the strongest arguemen) fine, but there is no justification whatsoever for characterizing it as a military coup.

I repeat, the military did nothing of its own initiative and deferred to civilian authorities in every instance.


It doesn't matter who ordered it, if they were successful in using the military as a tool with which to subjugate the executive rule, then it is a military coup.

No, its not. Was the various upheavings in Russia in the early nineties a military coup? No, because despite the military being used FAR more extensively than it was in Honduras, they were always acting on the orders of a civilian entity.

You want to call it a military coups because you think that is some sort of boggie man that trumps rational discussion of the realities of what happened, and the reality is that as coups go in Latin America this one is radically different than those from a couple decades ago and the absense of military leadership at any point is an amazing development for the region.

The military is an arm of the government, and as I have told you people a thousand times unlike in most western countires (with exceptions, see France/Switzerland) the military is by law a major portion of the national law enforcement apparatus.

And for that matter, if they were able to order the military around as their attack dog, then obviously the military is an intrinsic part of the regime.

The military is an intrisic part of the American regime too, you know, being an official branch of the governmen :rolleyes:

Guess what, the US military is obliged to follow the dictates of both Congress and the Supreme Court too, and is also obliged to refuse illegal orders from the President, just like what happened in Honduras.
 
1. The lack of open political space because of all that repression means that there's not the conditions to conduct free and fair elections. Campaigning would be severely crimped, potentially marred by violence, and quite possibly impossible. I mean, Jesus, even Cuba holds regular "elections".
Please. In Cuba there is only one party. There is no foreign media allowed, no observers, nothing. In Honduras even the supporters of Zelaya would be allowed to run. The Honduran government invited the OAS, the EU and the USA to send observers and closely monitor the process.
It's also important to point out that much of the repression and violence was caused by the state of siege that the american community, following Chávez, imposed on that poor and hopeless country. Chávez even threatned to invade.

2. It sets a shocking precedent for future coup situations. We don't want to be encouraging the idea that seizure of power by militaries or whoever else is okay if it only happens for a few months.
That's a deturpation of what happened. Honduras does not have a formal impeachment procedure. The Army, following orders from Congress and the Supreme Court, deposed a criminal president and a civilian transitional government was established.

3. Democracy is more than just elections. Giving the coupsters a free pass because they are going to hold elections does nothing to ensure that the human rights abuses, jailing of political prisoners and violations of freedom of speech and the press are ended, investigated and punished, instead of being simply carried-over and perpetuated. If anything, you're perpetuating the idea that these things are okay behaviour.
The removal of Zelaya was entirely OK. The violence and violation of free speech, although condemnable, were fairly small compared to what happens routinely in Venezuela. Compare the number of people killed in Honduras and the number of people killed by the National Guard of Venezuela or pro-Chávez gunmen. Compare the number of TV stations shut down or invaded, the number of radio stations "nationalized", and so on and so forth.
If there were abuses in Honduras, and there were, they should be investigated and punished by the next democratic government.

4. Internal legitimacy would not exist. Unlike in other democratic transitions like Spain or Chile or Indonesia, you would not have the majority of internal actors making pacts and accepting the legitimacy of the democratic process. These require a lot of necessary compromises in order to satisfy various actors. You can't have democracy if people don't believe in and support the structures and outcomes of that democracy. You'd simply be legitimising what the coupsters did by allowing them to decide their own exit strategy without compromising at all.
Even Zelaya's party favoured his ousting, as did most Hondurans. There would be plenty of internal legitmacy, I don't see how you got to think otherwise.

5. Given this, it wouldn't actually fix the situation. They would be almost universally regarded as a farce and a figleaf and would do nothing but replace one illegitimate, unrecognised government with another. You wouldn't be legitimising a new government going forward - this government would have no mandate. All the domestic and international negotiations and diplomatic isolation would simply transfer to a new de facto government. Nobody internationally has said they will recognise elections held on the coupsters' terms, Zelaya and supporters certainly wouldn't. It wouldn't solve anything.
It would solve everything if the international community stopped following Chávez and just accepted free elections as a solution. Internally, as I explained, there would be no issue whatsoever. Zelaya was vastly unpopular and a criminal.

6. Acknowledgement that what happened in Honduras was not legitimate or democratic needs to be made. Military impunity needs to be called to account.
The military followed orders from Congress and the SC. It was legitmate.

7. The best way to make those elections happen and be legitimate is to restore democracy, to return power to Zelaya, and let elections happen the normal way. Your sneaky claim that "he certainly will try to extend it" is an attempt to shore up an utterly indefensible position by implying that democracy is somehow more likely to result if it's not restored... and it's utter bollocks.
Utter bollocks? Want to bet that Zelaya will try to illegally extend his term or even attempt a full new term?

Right from the start, pre-coup, pre-constitutional crisis, Zelaya has said repeatedly that he would not and cannot run again because that would break the constitution - this is direct quotes from him which I've posted before from interviews and you've read: Even if voting on forming a constitutional convention had been allowed, even if that vote succeeded, and even if the resulting constitutional convention's reforms allowed future presidents a second term, and even if those reforms were passed, this would occur long after Zelaya was ousted and not apply retroactively.
Then why did Zelaya disobey Congress and the Supreme Court? Why did he illegally sack the commander of the Armed Forces for refusing to organize his referendum?

You are pretty alone in your interpretation of the facts. International media was unanimous in seeing it as a referendum to allow for his re-election. Zelaya is a lier and criminal.
 
Would you like to speculate on why they have gone from not trying him, to kicking him out, to ordering him to stay out, to ordering him to hand himself over for trial? Surely, if he was guilty of all the 'crimes' you have said he is, the thing to do would have been just to try him in the first place?

We already went over this. Just as Chavez does Zelaya has cadres of legit supporters but also radical goons who will use him as a lightening rod for violence and upheaval. As is clear from Zelaya's actions he has no care for the rule of law himself and like Chavez has no qualms about violating it to maintain his power. We have seen this in Latin American politics before. In fact, we saw his supporters try to riot when he was exiled, but the police didn't take the bait and let them rampage instead of get their PR shot by rightly restraining them.

In any case, Zelaya obviously cares more about his personal power than not formenting political violence, so exile is no longer an option. They will have to rightly send him to trial (not even you can deny his blatant crimes) and will have to endure his supporters causing trouble througout his imprisonment.
 
Patroklos, you aren't a stupid guy, but nor are you a guy who knows SFA on the intricacies of honduran politics, much less the composition of Zeleya's supporters and the rights and wrongs of their reactions to this event.

Why dont you just admit you have no idea why the de facto govt has acted in this way and be done with it instead of somehow trying to bring in Hugo Chavez, unspecified 'radical goons', predictions of his supporters causing trouble (you know absolutely nothing about how they will react) and how the PR war has gone (you are living in a dream world if you think the de facto govt has won, because outside this fourm I have seen absolutely nothing but support for Zelaya, even form right-wing governments)? Sometimes its OK to say "I don't know". And you don't.
 
Patroklos, you aren't a stupid guy, but nor are you a guy who knows SFA on the intricacies of honduran politics, much less the composition of Zeleya's supporters and the rights and wrongs of their reactions to this event.

Except in the original thread I was the one using actual Honduran law, word for word, and you were the one appealing to the unsupported opinions of foriegn governments... :crazyeye:

Why dont you just admit you have no idea why the de facto govt has acted in this way and be done with it instead of somehow trying to bring in Hugo Chavez, unspecified 'radical goons', predictions of his supporters causing trouble (you know absolutely nothing about how they will react) and how the PR war has gone (you are living in a dream world if you think the de facto govt has won, because outside this fourm I have seen absolutely nothing but support for Zelaya, even form right-wing governments)? Sometimes its OK to say "I don't know". And you don't.

:lol:

Bring in Chavez? Precious. In case you were not paying attention (obviously you were not) Chavez brought himself into the situation (you know, that whole threatening to invade thing?). You are obviously oblivious to the fact that Zelaya was publically modeling his regime after that of Chavez, brownshirtesque cadres and all. As I told you above, I don't have to guess as to what Zelaya's supporters are interested in, THEY ALREADY SHOWED US. Obviously you were too busy to concern yourself with their attempts at roiting on the day after the coup. Not peacefully protesting, but RIOTING.
 
Back
Top Bottom