Monday, October 19, 2009

Supreme Court or Congress? Differences about Who Should Decide Mel Zelaya's Future Break Talks

After first extending the deadline for talks by 12 hours—then by three more—dialogue between negotiators representing Roberto Micheletti and Mel Zelaya broke down late Friday with no agreement reached. Nevertheless, both sides said they would once again head back to the negotiating table on Monday, even as Zelaya made new calls on domestic supporters and the international community to step up pressure on the de factor government [the ALBA alliance of left-leaning Latin American leaders, meeting in Cochabamba, Bolivia, were the first to heed the new calls of Mr. Zelaya by approving a new set of economic sanctions, writes the AP. While the Miami Herald reports the Honduran Resistance movement may be losing steam domestically.]

As reported all last week, the reinstatement of Mr. Zelaya to the presidency remains the issue around which deep divisions between the two sides still exists. In a proposal submitted on Friday, Mr. Micheletti insisted that it was the Honduran Supreme Court who must decide whether or not Mel Zelaya should be allowed to return to the presidency [the Court in the past has been a strong ally of Mr. Micheletti and thus, Zelaya’s chief negotiator, Victor Meza, called the Micheletti proposal “completely unacceptable”]. To the contrary, Zelaya negotiators have contended in a counterproposal, read at an impromptu press conference Friday evening, that it is the Honduran Congress who should be the final arbiter on the issue.

Meanwhile, on the human rights front, there were also reports late last week that the de facto government was blocking human rights investigations to be undertaken by the government’s own prosecutor’s office. HRW’s Americas Director, José Miguel Vivcano—in a statement Friday which also called for an increase in international human rights investigations—said that “by obstructing investigations, the [Honduran] security forces are making a mockery of the law.” And on Sunday a three-member OAS human rights delegation reportedly arrived in Tegucigalpa [with EFE reporting that a second UN team may also soon arrive] to conduct a two-week study of abuses committed since the June 28 coup. The identities of the three individuals who make up the delegation have remained secret for security reasons. The Committee for Missing Prisoners in Honduras has said the number killed since June 28 stands at 12, with one more individual, trade union activist, Jairo Sanchez, dying over the weekend after being in critical condition in a Honduras hospital for a month. [Human Rights Defense Committee president Andres Pavon says another 25 people have been wounded by military gunfire during protests].

And finally in other reports and opinions over the weekend, Time’s Tim Padgett says there are growing signs that the U.S. may be willing to abandon the condition that Mr. Zelaya must be restored to the presidency for elections to be recognized. “A number of well-placed sources in Honduras and the U.S. tell TIME that officials in the State Department and the U.S.'s OAS delegation have informed them that the Obama Administration is mulling ways to legitimize the election should talks fail to restore Zelaya in time.” And former Sec. of State James Baker argues in the Washington Post that “matters [in Honduras] will only deteriorate if the international community refuses to recognize the results of the coming Honduran elections.” He argues lessons from Nicaraguan elections in 1990 should be used in the case of Honduras in 2009. Baker goes on: “Non-interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign country is a cardinal principle of the U.N. Charter. In keeping with it, we should defer to the Hondurans' interpretation of their constitution. This calls for Micheletti to serve as interim president until the expiration of his term in January, or earlier if he stepped down as part of a compromise. Under either timeline, the constitution's order of succession should be followed. In the meantime, protecting constitutional rights -- particularly the country's freedoms of speech and the press -- will powerfully demonstrate the interim government's dedication to constitutionality and the rule of law.”

Around the region this weekend:

· In a series of pieces on Mexico this weekend, the LA Times reports on a new round of killings in the Guerrero, likely connected to the activity of La Familia drug cartel, known to be in the area. The New York Times’ Marc Lacey reports both on new fears that Mexican investigators are faced with in investigating drug-related crime in the country and the new fears the Central American migrants passing through Mexico have of being kidnapped. And the AP reports on the detention of a Mexican human rights activist (and member of the Chihuahua human rights commission) by U.S. Customs, allegedly for the man’s own safety.

· Two pieces in the Miami Herald and New York Times write on Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, recently denied an exit visa from Cuba to attend a ceremony at Columbia University recognizing her work.

· The LA Times, in an editorial, and the Wall Street Journal, in Mary Anastasia O’Grady’s weekly column, take up the issue of Felipe Calderon’s decision to dissolve a state-run electricity company last week.

· The Financial Times has an interview with Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe about the possibility he may be seeking re-election.

· In Brazil, a recent eruption of gang violence over the weekend which took the lives of 14 (while also leaving a police helicopter shot down and buses burned) has some worried about the city hosting the Olympics in 2016.

· And finally, the AP writes that Cuba’s first ambassador to El Salvador since the 1960s arrived in San Salvador Sunday. President Mauricio Funes restored relations with the island after his election last spring.

No comments:

Post a Comment