By David Roberts
Following last week's attempted "coup" in Ecuador (we use the speech marks because it is far from clear if the protest over bonuses by some disgruntled sections of the military and police ever seriously threatened, or was even intended to bring down the government, and President Rafael Correa's claim that he was "kidnapped" in a hospital and threatened with death seems dubious to say the least) some fear the left-leaning leader may be inclined to clamp down on the opposition and impose a more radical and/or authoritarian form of government similar to what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela after the coup attempt there in 2002.
The initial signs are not so positive, with Ecuador's foreign minister Ricardo Patiño saying "what we can expect after an episode like this is the radicalization, the strengthening of the revolution." If Correa does take that path, using the coup attempt as a pretext, it would be a big mistake. Although considered a close ally of Chavez, along with Evo Morales in Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, the Ecuadorian president has to date governed in a much less confrontational manner than the Venezuelan leader. What Latin America needs less of is the kind of polarization of society seen in Venezuela, and one thing the region needs more of is stronger democratic institutions, the need for which is evidenced by the eroding of certain democratic freedoms in Venezuela (for example the closure of opposition TV channels), and events like last year's coup in Honduras and last week's unrest in Ecuador.
Leaders such as Chavez, Morales, Ortega and to a certain extent Correa - who has actually overseen a fair degree of stability in what is a notoriously volatile country - need to realize that once in office, a government has to be the government of all the people, and not just those who voted that government into power, or the factions who support it. Consensus, not confrontation, is the key to good government. As Brazil's outgoing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Morales last year in explaining his own success:
"Evo, the political lesson and the lesson for life here is important. I don't govern only for the poor or the workers. They're my priority, but I govern for all the people."
But given the history of political instability in Ecuador, and realizing how fragile his own situation is, hopefully Correa will be wise enough to tread carefully and avoid excessive confrontation, despite his own inclinations. Since the protests, his government has announced pay rises for the police and military, albeit claiming the move was not related to last week's incidents.
Which brings us conveniently to Brazil, where Dilma Rousseff looks set to continue along a similar road to that taken by Lula in his two terms in office, assuming she wins the presidential run-off vote at the end of October. Whether she will enjoy the success that Lula has had, both in terms of the domestic economy and positioning Brazil on the world stage, obviously remains to be seen. The odds, however, must weigh heavily in Rousseff's favor given the solid base that Lula - once considered a leftist hothead himself - has laid and the positive forecasts for Brazil's economy, buoyed further by the healthy majority she is expected to enjoy in congress.
But Rousseff's Brazil will, of course, face massive challenges, such as in the areas of infrastructure (especially with the World Cup and Olympics coming up), in tackling corruption, in reducing further the unacceptably high poverty rate and in improving wealth distribution.
bnamericas
Google Ads
Showing posts with label Honduras coup. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Honduras coup. Show all posts
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Honduras 14 months on: Time for a dose of diplomatic realpolitik
By David Roberts
So, those who plotted the coup in Honduras at the end of June last year got their way, after all. The coup-backers' bogeyman, President Manuel Zelaya, was successfully overthrown and remains in exile in the Dominican Republic, and the new government led by Porfirio Lobo has been recognized as democratic, or very close to democratic, by Washington, the EU and most of the countries that cut off ties when Zelaya was ousted.
The latest countries to recognize the Lobo government and restore full diplomatic relations were Chile and Mexico, both citing a report by the Organization of American States - which expelled Honduras after the coup - that concluded Lobo has made "considerable progress in the cause of restoring democracy and freedoms in the Central American country."
Still holding out are the left-leaning Latin American nations inspired by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, and, most notably, Brazil and Argentina. So was it right for the US, the EU, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Peru and others - including all of Honduras' Central American neighbors except Nicaragua - to recognize the Lobo government? And if the answer is yes, should those who haven't done so follow suit?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of last June's coup - those behind it justified their move by arguing that Zelaya was trying to change the constitution illegally so he could run for another term in office - not having diplomatic relations with a country should not be used as a "punishment" for events in the past, nor as a means of protest because one nation does not like another nation's system of government. Otherwise, western-style democracies simply would not have diplomatic ties with most countries in Africa and the Middle East, nor with quite a few in Asia.
Nor of course with Cuba, although the argument that if a country is going to have diplomatic relations with Havana then there's no excuse for not having them with Tegucigalpa doesn't entirely stand up, as Cuba was not a democracy when the present incumbents took power.
Of course, withdrawing ambassadors and cutting ties can and should be used as a means of expressing disapproval of a serious breach of the democratic "rules of the game," as happened in Honduras last year, but times move on and the de facto government has given way to one that has earned a certain legitimacy.
Like it or not, Lobo was democratically elected, although Zelaya should be allowed to return without having to face criminal proceedings - and perhaps those who carried out the coup should face at the very least a full investigation (although not necessarily criminal punishment as Chavez and company maintain). But in deciding whether to restore relations, a nation needs to give priority to the current situation, and, of course, practical issues such as its own political, business and cultural interests, along with the interests of its own citizens.
In conclusion: Breaking off diplomatic relations may be a useful means of protest but in itself it doesn't solve anything, and over time has negative effects in other areas such as trade, investment, travel and cultural exchange. In the case of Honduras, it's time for the Venezuela-led bloc to fall in line with the rest of the region.
bnamericas
So, those who plotted the coup in Honduras at the end of June last year got their way, after all. The coup-backers' bogeyman, President Manuel Zelaya, was successfully overthrown and remains in exile in the Dominican Republic, and the new government led by Porfirio Lobo has been recognized as democratic, or very close to democratic, by Washington, the EU and most of the countries that cut off ties when Zelaya was ousted.
The latest countries to recognize the Lobo government and restore full diplomatic relations were Chile and Mexico, both citing a report by the Organization of American States - which expelled Honduras after the coup - that concluded Lobo has made "considerable progress in the cause of restoring democracy and freedoms in the Central American country."
Still holding out are the left-leaning Latin American nations inspired by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, and, most notably, Brazil and Argentina. So was it right for the US, the EU, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Peru and others - including all of Honduras' Central American neighbors except Nicaragua - to recognize the Lobo government? And if the answer is yes, should those who haven't done so follow suit?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of last June's coup - those behind it justified their move by arguing that Zelaya was trying to change the constitution illegally so he could run for another term in office - not having diplomatic relations with a country should not be used as a "punishment" for events in the past, nor as a means of protest because one nation does not like another nation's system of government. Otherwise, western-style democracies simply would not have diplomatic ties with most countries in Africa and the Middle East, nor with quite a few in Asia.
Nor of course with Cuba, although the argument that if a country is going to have diplomatic relations with Havana then there's no excuse for not having them with Tegucigalpa doesn't entirely stand up, as Cuba was not a democracy when the present incumbents took power.
Of course, withdrawing ambassadors and cutting ties can and should be used as a means of expressing disapproval of a serious breach of the democratic "rules of the game," as happened in Honduras last year, but times move on and the de facto government has given way to one that has earned a certain legitimacy.
Like it or not, Lobo was democratically elected, although Zelaya should be allowed to return without having to face criminal proceedings - and perhaps those who carried out the coup should face at the very least a full investigation (although not necessarily criminal punishment as Chavez and company maintain). But in deciding whether to restore relations, a nation needs to give priority to the current situation, and, of course, practical issues such as its own political, business and cultural interests, along with the interests of its own citizens.
In conclusion: Breaking off diplomatic relations may be a useful means of protest but in itself it doesn't solve anything, and over time has negative effects in other areas such as trade, investment, travel and cultural exchange. In the case of Honduras, it's time for the Venezuela-led bloc to fall in line with the rest of the region.
bnamericas
Saturday, October 10, 2009
UN human rights experts raise concern over growing use of foreign mercenaries in Honduras
A group of independent United Nations experts voiced concern today over the influx of foreign mercenaries in Honduras since the Central American nation’s President was deposed in a military coup in June.
The experts have received reports of the recruitment of former Colombian paramilitaries to protect properties and individuals in Honduras from violence between supporters of the ousted President José Manuel Zelaya and the de facto Government.
Land owners in Honduras have hired some 40 ex-fighters from the former armed group, Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), since Mr. Zelaya was removed from power on 28 June, according to the UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries.
In addition, the Working Group said that other sources report an armed group of 120 mercenaries originating from several countries in the region was formed to support the coup in Honduras.
“There are also allegations of indiscriminate use of ‘Long Range Acoustic Devices’ by the police and mercenaries against President Zelaya and his supporters who have taken refuge at the Embassy of Brazil,” the experts said in a news release.
“We urge the Honduran authorities to take all practical measures to prevent the use of mercenaries within its territory and to fully investigate allegations concerning their presence and activities,” they added.
The experts noted that the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries is prohibited under the International Convention on the issue, which Honduras has signed, stressing the right of Hondurans to decide how they want to be governed without the influence of any other entity.
The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination was established in 2005 by the Commission on Human Right, which has since been succeeded by the Human Rights Council.
It comprises five experts serving in their personal capacities. They are: Shaista Shameem of Fiji, Najat al-Hajjaji of Libya, Amada Benavides de Pérez of Colombia, José Luis Gómez del Prado of Spain and Alexander Nikitin of Russia.
9 October 2009
UN News
The experts have received reports of the recruitment of former Colombian paramilitaries to protect properties and individuals in Honduras from violence between supporters of the ousted President José Manuel Zelaya and the de facto Government.
Land owners in Honduras have hired some 40 ex-fighters from the former armed group, Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), since Mr. Zelaya was removed from power on 28 June, according to the UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries.
In addition, the Working Group said that other sources report an armed group of 120 mercenaries originating from several countries in the region was formed to support the coup in Honduras.
“There are also allegations of indiscriminate use of ‘Long Range Acoustic Devices’ by the police and mercenaries against President Zelaya and his supporters who have taken refuge at the Embassy of Brazil,” the experts said in a news release.
“We urge the Honduran authorities to take all practical measures to prevent the use of mercenaries within its territory and to fully investigate allegations concerning their presence and activities,” they added.
The experts noted that the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries is prohibited under the International Convention on the issue, which Honduras has signed, stressing the right of Hondurans to decide how they want to be governed without the influence of any other entity.
The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination was established in 2005 by the Commission on Human Right, which has since been succeeded by the Human Rights Council.
It comprises five experts serving in their personal capacities. They are: Shaista Shameem of Fiji, Najat al-Hajjaji of Libya, Amada Benavides de Pérez of Colombia, José Luis Gómez del Prado of Spain and Alexander Nikitin of Russia.
9 October 2009
UN News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)