Scheduled elections in Honduras are now just 6 days away. And so I begin this morning with an excellent, albeit pessimistic, piece by Time’s Tim Padgett who writes: “It would be great if a presidential election could magically transport the small, impoverished Central American nation beyond the political crisis that has gripped it since the June 28 coup. But unless Zelaya is restored to office before next week's balloting, which looks extremely unlikely, the international community is poised to brand the vote illegitimate.” Padgett goes on: “Instead, the election will confirm that Honduras has slipped back into the political chicanery and military meddling that typified the 1970s and '80s. According to the Council of the Americas’ Christopher Sabatini, using an election as a means of “cleaning the slate after a coup” could threaten democratic norms across the region for decades. The piece argues, in fact, that Honduras has quickly shown just how little progress has been made in the region since the dirty civil wars of the Cold War era. Central America has seen 79,000 murders in the past six years, more than the 75,000 people killed in El Salvador's 1980-1992 civil war or the 50,000 killed in Nicaragua's 1980-1990 contra war, writes Time. And while some recent events—particularly the election of the FMLN’s Mauricio Funes in El Salvador—hinted at progress, Padgett argues that “One of the main reasons bad old habits have lingered is that despite the gains of the past decade or so, the same few families and business groups continue to control the region's economy.”
With the latest on Honduras specifically, ousted President Mel Zelaya marked 2 months in the Brazilian embassy this weekend by emitting a new communiqué in which he says Sunday’s elections must be postponed. “In the current moment in Honduras, we have a de facto state, there is no constitution nor proper state powers, which were destroyed by force,” Zelaya writes. Guatemala became the latest country to announce that it would not recognize the results of the Sunday vote, even while an AP report this morning argues that many in the “deeply conservative society” of Honduras continue to support a elections as a means of “fixing the situation” and ending the nightmare of the last 5 months. Even the left-leaning, Unificación Democrática decided this weekend that they would participate in Sunday’s election, despite calls for a boycott by anti-coup forces. For more on the elections—and specifically this issue of supporting or rejecting their results—I recommend two sets of point-counterpoint arguments. At Gazettextra.com, CEPR’s Mark Weisbrot argues that if the U.S. recognizes the election, it would be a strong statement that “human rights and democracy in this hemisphere count for zero in the political calculations [of the U.S.].” While the Heritage Foundation’s Ray Walser argues that the Tom Shannon-brokered deal signed two weeks ago requires the U.S. to “support fully” the Nov. 29 vote. And in the blogosphere, RAJ at “Honduras Coup 2009” and Boz at “Bloggings by Boz” lay out their cases for rejecting and accepting the elections, respectively. RAJ also begins thinking about how elections might not be recognized while still holding out the possibility of recognizing the elected government which comes out of the vote, before that government is installed in January.
Finally, there is also news that pro-Zelaya Channel 36 was again taken off the air this weekend by the government. And after saying they weren’t aware of human rights abuses early last week, the DOS, through its spokesman Ian Kelly, found itself backtracking Friday, writes the AP. Kelly cited censuring of media outlets as particularly worrying.
Around the region this weekend:
· The New York Times writes that “Brazil’s ambitions to be a more important player on the global diplomatic stage are crashing headlong into the efforts of the United States and other Western powers to rein in Iran’s nuclear arms program.” Lula da Silva is set to host Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today in the Iranian leader’s first state visit to Brazil and many U.S. lawmakers are anything but happy. “This is part of Brazil projecting its role and strength as a global player,” says Michael Shifter, of the Inter-American Dialogue. “And part of this has to do with Brazil sending a message to Washington that it will deal whomever it wants to deal with.” According to Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY), “[Ahmadinejad] is illegitimate with his own people, and Brazil is now going to give him the air of legitimacy at a time when the world is trying to figure out how to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. It makes no sense to me, and it tarnishes the image of Brazil, quite frankly.” The relationship between the two countries appears to be primarily economic. Brazilian national oil company, Petrobras, has helped Iran develop its oil fields and the two countries did about $2 billion in trade in 2007, mostly in food, says Brazilian foreign minister, Celso Amorim. According to the LA Times, the two countries plan to sign new deals today on biotechnology, energy and agriculture.
· The Washington Post reports that Mexican Interior Minister data shows just one soldier has been convicted for human rights violations during Mexico’s bloody, three-year campaign against drug traffickers. Human rights groups in Mexico and the United States describe the lack of convictions as a sign that Mexico's military is incapable of prosecuting abuses among its officers and troops. “The bottom line is that the Mexican military is not producing credible results, and you cannot do business with a military that refuses to be accountable,” says Jose Miguel Vivanco, director of the Americas program for Human Rights Watch. Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission has received well over 2000 complaints about rights abuses. The State Dept. said in August that 12 Mexican soldiers had been convicted for human rights abuses since 2006—a number contradicted by Interior Ministry figures.
· The Post also has a piece on increased military and intelligence cooperation between Mexico and the U.S., going “well beyond” the $1.4 billion Merida Initiative. “The two countries are sharing sensitive intelligence and computer technology, military hardware and, perhaps most importantly, U.S. know-how to train and vet Mexican agents,” says the paper. And there is also news this weekend that 15 La Familia associates were indicted in a Chicago for running a cocaine distribution ring for the Mexican cartel. The LA Times, meanwhile, writes of Richard Padilla Cramer, the former U.S. attaché for ICE in Mexico City, accused of working with Mexican drug gangs. Cramer’s trial begins in Miami this week. And in the Dallas Morning News, Alfredo Corchado writes that “U.S. assistance to help Mexico fight drug traffickers will probably continue beyond the allotted three years of the Mérida Initiative, with expanding cooperation but not joint law enforcement or military operations ‘on Mexican soil any time soon.’” The Merida Initiative is set to expire next year and U.S. and Mexican officials are now exploring ways to refocus their efforts “from dismantling and disrupting cartels to strengthening Mexico's weak democratic institutions and weeding out corruption.” “Citizen security” and “safety” will soon become the priorities of the Mexico-U.S. relation, one official tells the DMN.
· Late last week, Venezuela blew up two pedestrian bridges that connected its territory to Colombia—the latest in the deterioration of relations between the two countries. Colombia denounced the action as a violation of international law, saying it will petition the UN and OAS to intervene. For its part, Venezuela said the bridges provided easy access for paramilitaries and smugglers. For more, I recommend Boz’s Venezuela-Colombia round-up, which includes news that Venezuela also announced the arrival of 300 new Russian tanks this weekend. And the LA Times’ Chris Kraul adds to a number of stories about power outages and public service failures in Venezuela with his reporting over the weekend. He writes: “the government's failure to pay its employees -- be they healthcare workers in San Cristobal in the west or professors in Caracas – has [also] become another rallying point for unrest, with numerous groups taking their complaints to the streets this week.”
· In Cuba, the AP writes that pro-Castro groups attacked the husband of Yoani Sanchez over the weekend, punching and shouting down the partner of the anti-Castro blogger after he challenged state security agents who he says beat up his wife two weeks ago.
· In Nicaragua, the Miami Herald has a report on the return of the Contras, under the banner of the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN), to oppose the government of Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas.
· And finally four opinions. Jorge Castaneda writes in the WSJ that Cuba should release political prisoners in exchange for normalized relations with the U.S., citing the pathway to normalization laid out in the recent HRW report. Andres Oppenheimer writes on Transparency International’s new corruption rankings and argues the data confirms that “fiery populist leaders who rise to power vowing to eradicate corruption often end up leading sleazier governments than their predecessors.” An editorial in the Miami Herald calls on Sen. George LeMieux to end his hold of Brazilian ambassadorial nominee, Tom Shannon. And Mary Anastasia O’Grady in the WSJ calls Evo Morales the head of a Bolivian “narco-dictatorship.” She writes “Mr. Morales is South America's latest dictator, but he is not the ideological communist that many fear. He's more akin to a mob boss, having risen to power by promising to protect the coca business. Now he has the capacity to do it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment