Chile Forum

perhaps the phrase "bad precedent for the region" needs to be qualified. From the same article in The Economist:

Once all too familiar, such events have become rare in Latin America over the past two decades as democracy has put down roots. It was the first coup in the region since the confused ousting of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti in 2003, and a brief rising against Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez in 2002.

the general idea, i take it, is that in latin america, 6 years without military action against a democratically elected president is notable. i guess it's time to start counting again from zero. perhaps we'll make it to 2015 without another example of this "lamentable Latin American tradition".

doesn't this get to one of the main points of this thread? yes, rws, the military action was "lamentable" and sadly in keeping with latin american politics as practiced over the decades, despite the efforts of some to make it all seem "legal". perhaps it is time for a discussion of the difference between "legal" and "moral".

cali_chile48 wrote:. . . . perhaps it is time for a discussion of the difference between "legal" and "moral".

We need look no further than our own laws to see examples of the contrast. Nevertheless, the ideal in Anglo-American jurisprudence has always been that law, though more limited, should be bound by if not congruent with morality; not necessarily so in some other juridical traditions, though generally (if not invariably) cloaked in such language.

xxx

seems like a good time to revive this thread.....

the last post on this topic was over a month ago, and a few things have developed since then. let's see....in no particular order....the talks with the the costa rican president resulted in squat, and neighboring guatamala has declared a famine, something like 70 % of their population is underfed....zelaya visited a few places, like chile...but mostly the story faded away until two days ago, when zelaya showed up at the brazilian embassy in tegucigalpa.

i'm not clear on how he got into the country. perhaps he had brazilian support, perhaps not. he has a way of broadcasting messages to his supporters to come to the embassy, probably by radio via his cell phone, which requires some substantial logistical support (from nicaragua???). several hundred people, mostly people who support zelaya, surrounded the embassy. the other president (michiletti), predictably, called out the army and they've had a few skirmishes in the streets. the honduran government has cut electricity and water to the brazilian embassy, and no doubt michiletti and zelaya are both in contact with lula. michiletti wants the brazilians to hand zelaya over so he can be arrested, zelaya wants to be reinstated as (the elected) president.

i can see several possible endings to this situation, and most of them are not very pretty....zelaya is forcing the issue, but i don't think he has the massive public support that he needs to force michiletti to back down. his actions seem more symbolic than productive. neither one, as politicians, wants to concede much to the other. a few questions to ponder:

can zelaya hang out without water and electricity until the elections in october?? how tight of a blockade will the honduran army put up around the embassy...no food, either??? perhaps the reverse of hotel california...you can leave but you can can never go back in? (so eventually zelaya will be there alone, hungry and thirsty in the dark....). how much personal discomfort is zelaya really prepared to endure to get what he wants? has he miscalculated badly (again!)? will he get any international support? will the hondurans storm the embassy?

perhaps a not-so-trivial point....the US national soccer team is scheduled to play in honduras on october 10 in a meaningful (in the world of soccer) game. will the american athletes in honduras become a factor in this drama?

el puelche wrote:okay, the Zelaya thing and the Honduras thing is not my beat....but what I have heard>>implied>>profferred up>>have found to be willingly difulged>>>is that Zelaya is a puppet, bought out for the big cartel cash to run the warehouse that ships mercancia out of venezuela(merca de colombia y peru, entregado por la guerrilla) for el gordo rojo...the bolivar routine still runs but not like la linea blanca...the US for its part has /sponsored/ the early retirement of el Z, and otherwise he would have been in the drivers seat again by now, so that's that.

I have a relative who flies around the world selling aircraft parts. His take on the situation in these countries is similar to yours, but I have a hard time being that cynical -- there are just too many strong personalities involved for me to believe a puppet master is hidden behind a black curtain. Maybe I'm naive, but couldn't large-scale corruption and incompetence explain the same circumstances?

correction and a factoid:

presidential elections are schedule for november 29.....67 days from now....it's hard to imagine zelaya holding out that long in the embassy with no water.

and....

zelaya is in the embassy with his wife....i wonder...does she really love him that much? is this more than she signed up for when she said "i do"? is he using her as a shield? it's not that i'm cynical about love or a commitment to a cause, but i haven't picked up signals that she is the angela davis type. i could be wrong...maybe she's fighting for some deeply held principle....or maybe she'll decide she really wants a hot shower.

zelaya is a nut case. He claimed in an interview with a Miami news paper this morning that his throat was still burning from gas that Israeli agents where using to interrogate him inside the Brazilian embassy. He had some other off the wall claims that sound so far out, they are either true or someone needs a padded cell.

a classic ploy....create enough civil unrest to force the government to crack down and then wait for popular sentiments to boil over. zelaya couldn't accomplish that from outside honduras, so he went inside. now the honduran government (the un-elected one) has imposed 45 days of martial law. i think zelaya has miscalculated. i don't think he has enough popular support to generate the social chaos he needs to return to power....but he probably has enough to cost a few more people their lives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/americas/29honduras.html?_r=1&hp

This is getting real ugly

yesterday michiletti issued a decree which

bans public gatherings, restricts the press and makes it easier for the army to arrest people.

some of michileeti's supporters are now having second thoughts. they are thinking that perhaps

Micheletti went too far in suspending constitutional guarantees, especially since he has invoked the constitution to justify removing Zelaya.

quotes from: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 8126.story

interesting, eh? in july, michiletti was all about enforcing the constitution as written, no exceptions...and now???? it's an annoying piece of paper....

HA! Michiletti is now saying he made a mistake by expelling Zelaya. Duh. It only took him 3 months to figure that one out. Too bad he didn't think things through BEFORE he orchestrated the midnight raid to expel the elected president in his pajamas.

From today's El Mercurio....NOT a left wing newspaper in Santiago:

Sábado 3 de Octubre de 2009 11:06

Micheletti reconoce como un "error" expulsión de Manuel Zelaya de Honduras
El Presidente de facto, además culpó a Venezuela y a Brasil por "financiar" al depuesto Mandatario y "convocar a la insurreción y violencia desde la embajada".

SAN PABLO.- El Presidente de facto de Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, reconoció que fue un "error" haber expulsado del país al mandatario constitucional Manuel Zelaya el 28 de junio pasado y responsabilizó por la crisis a Venezuela y Brasil.

Además, Micheletti reiteró que Zelaya abandonó a su Partido Liberal y comenzó a "reunirse con comunistas de café".

Micheletti, en diálogo con la revista brasileña opositora Veja, adjudicó que cerró medios de comunicación y declaró el estado de sitio a la decisión de Brasil de alojar en su embajada en Tegucigalpa a Zelaya.

"Brasil, por medio de su presidente (Luiz Lula da Silva), permitió que Zelaya convocara a la insurrección y a la violencia desde el balcón de la embajada. El señor Lula no tuvo la cortesía de llamarlo y de pedirle que parara con eso porque perjudicaría a toda la población", dijo Michelleti.

"Tomé esas decisiones para evitar derramamiento de sangre", dijo. El gobernante de facto rechazó el término golpista dado que hace 30 años que es parlamentario y que su posición actual responde a una decisión de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, pero dijo que "fue un error" expulsar a Zelaya.

Los militares encargados de esa tarea deberían haberlo llevado a los tribunales, pero lo sacaron del país para evitar una guerra civil", dijo.Zelaya, para Micheletti, "es un muñeco del presidente (venezolano) Hugo Chávez, que le hizo acreditar se convertiría en un lider grandilocuente".

"Chávez financia a Zelaya con el dinero de los venezolanos", dijo Micheletti, cuyo gobierno no fue reconocido por ningún país ni por la ONU.

cali_chile48 wrote:HA! Michiletti is now saying he made a mistake by expelling Zelaya. Duh. It only took him 3 months to figure that one out. Too bad he didn't think things through BEFORE he orchestrated the midnight raid to expel the elected president in his pajamas.

From today's El Mercurio....NOT a left wing newspaper in Santiago:

Sábado 3 de Octubre de 2009 11:06

Micheletti reconoce como un "error" expulsión de Manuel Zelaya de Honduras
El Presidente de facto, además culpó a Venezuela y a Brasil por "financiar" al depuesto Mandatario y "convocar a la insurreción y violencia desde la embajada".

SAN PABLO.- El Presidente de facto de Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, reconoció que fue un "error" haber expulsado del país al mandatario constitucional Manuel Zelaya el 28 de junio pasado y responsabilizó por la crisis a Venezuela y Brasil.

Además, Micheletti reiteró que Zelaya abandonó a su Partido Liberal y comenzó a "reunirse con comunistas de café".

Micheletti, en diálogo con la revista brasileña opositora Veja, adjudicó que cerró medios de comunicación y declaró el estado de sitio a la decisión de Brasil de alojar en su embajada en Tegucigalpa a Zelaya.

"Brasil, por medio de su presidente (Luiz Lula da Silva), permitió que Zelaya convocara a la insurrección y a la violencia desde el balcón de la embajada. El señor Lula no tuvo la cortesía de llamarlo y de pedirle que parara con eso porque perjudicaría a toda la población", dijo Michelleti.

"Tomé esas decisiones para evitar derramamiento de sangre", dijo. El gobernante de facto rechazó el término golpista dado que hace 30 años que es parlamentario y que su posición actual responde a una decisión de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, pero dijo que "fue un error" expulsar a Zelaya.

Los militares encargados de esa tarea deberían haberlo llevado a los tribunales, pero lo sacaron del país para evitar una guerra civil", dijo.Zelaya, para Micheletti, "es un muñeco del presidente (venezolano) Hugo Chávez, que le hizo acreditar se convertiría en un lider grandilocuente".

"Chávez financia a Zelaya con el dinero de los venezolanos", dijo Micheletti, cuyo gobierno no fue reconocido por ningún país ni por la ONU.

Yes, from the very beginning of this whole episode back in June, it was acknowledged early on that the one act that was "likely illegal" was the deportation. Not the constitutionally correct act of recognizing that Zelaya had ceased being president when his intentions were made clear. As such, the correct legal solution would be to restore Manuel Zelaya's Honduran citizenship and residency. His presidency is still a thing of the past, and rightfully so, thanks to the lawful, correct action to remove him from the executive post he had forfeited by his actions.

The November 29 election is just around the corner, and neither Zelaya nor Micheletti are eligible to run for president. Zelaya's patrons in the UN, OAS and the White House, if they wanted to really support the rule of law, would lobby for a solution wherein Zelaya would be allowed to stand in the crowd along the streets of Tegucigalpa and cheer for whomever is elected president in a couple of weeks, just like any other private citizen. Then he can retire to the ranch, like a good ex-president.