The de facto president of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, said he was willing to resign from the office he assumed two months ago on Thursday. But, as the New York Times’ Marc Lacey and the Washington Post’s Mary Beth Sheridan report, there is a one major condition which makes the possibility of a negotiated resolution again unlikely. Talking in a brief telephone interview that the Times reports was arranged by his aides, Micheletti said “I’m ready to present my resignation,” as long as ousted President Mel Zelaya in turn agreed to also resign, opening the door to the next in line. That individual is the head of the Honduran Supreme Court Jorge Rivera, who supported the coup against Zelaya. Indeed, as Marc Lacey writes, Mr. Micheletti offered an almost identical proposal one month ago which went nowhere, and while this time Micheletti added that he would accept international election observers in November and support amnesty for both Mr. Zelaya and those who helped in his ouster, many observers believe few new substantive changes will occur after the statement. The Post, for example, (which reports that this latest Micheletti offer was made in a private Washington meeting) says the OAS’s Sec. General has rejected the proposal immediately, just back from a failed trip with several of the region’s foreign ministers on Monday. But others who are working with backers of the Micheletti government see the de facto leader’s words differently. “We regard this as a significant change in Mr. Micheletti's policy, and his willingness to immediately resign shows that this is not about his power, but it is about the rule of law,” said Lanny Davis, a former Clinton administration aide now representing the business community in Honduras which has long supported the coup government. Meanwhile, after months of legal deliberation, an anonymous State Dept. official said a new statement on the nature of Mr. Zelaya’s ouster can be expected very soon, in which the U.S. would at last label the event of June 28 a “military coup.” The designation would put millions of dollars in aid in jeopardy, reports Reuters. The leak comes after U.S. officials expressed their disappointment in Monday’s OAS delegation trip to Tegucigalpa. Finally, on the ground in Honduras, EFE reports that some Zelaya supporters are calling for a boycott of upcoming November elections, arguing that going to the polls would “legitimize the coup.” “The Honduran people will not play the game of the coup making politicians and will come out against the elections,” peasant leader Rafael Alegria of Via Campesina tells EFE. Campaigining is to set begin this week for the late November poll.
In other news, the new U.S.-Colombia military deal comes center stage in the region today at a UNASUR Summit of Latin American leaders, to be held in Argentina. The AP writes the military deal will overshadow the summit with Brazil hoping to get Colombia to make written statements, promising that the U.S. military will remain within Colombia’s borders. Meanwhile, Reuters writes that Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is working to shore up opposition to the plan, casting it “as a provocation that could spark war in South America.” On Thursday, Mr. Chavez published an opinion piece in an Argentine newspaper condemning the deal. In a story I missed yesterday, the Washington Post has an interesting look at Colombian bases deal, writing that “even in Colombia, which accuses Chávez of meddling in its internal affairs, lawmakers are questioning whether the plan is legal and whether it could escalate the country's 45-year-old conflict, among other issues.” The accord would give the U.S. access to three air bases, two army outposts, and two naval ports, says the Post, and opposition politicians in Colombia remain skeptical about the vague terms of the deal. “Without seeing the text, it's hard to understand exactly what was agreed upon,” says Sen. Juan Manuel Galán. Moreover, as the AP writes today, there is the possibility that the new deal might fuel arms purchases throughout the region. “The bases deal has created uncertainty about regional stability and provided yet another justification for nations to spend big on their militaries.” Already, “the 12 South American nations spent about $51 billion last year on their militaries -- up 30 percent from 2007,” according to a Buenos Aires research group.
Also, two other stories that were missed yesterday. The NYT reports on the new path of drug policy in Latin America, after two decriminalization measures in Mexico and Argentina over the last week. “The global consensus on drug policy is cracking, and an increasing number of countries are agreeing that over-reliance on criminal justice as the ‘solution’ to the drug problem is not helpful at best, and is often harmful,” says Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, director of the Open Society Institute's Global Drug Policy Program. And the WP reports on drug war “spill over” from Mexico to the U.S. and the use of cartel members in the U.S. as intelligence sources for anti-narcotics operations. “…In order to fight the drug traffickers, federal anti-narcotics agents have brought Mexican cartel members north of the border, to use them to gather intelligence and build cases,” writes the paper.
Finally, a piece in the LA Times this morning looks at the case against Chevron in Ecuador. After 16 years, litigation against the U.S. oil giant is finally wrapping up in an Ecuadorean court room and Chevron now acknowledges that it will likely lose the case. The LAT writes that “a victory would mark a turning point in the relations between native populations around the world and the foreign corporations that do business in their homelands.” And the likely judgment, expected to run close to $27 billion, would too be historic, say analysts.
No comments:
Post a Comment