The State Department announces that migration talks with
Update: Both sides gave positive assessments afterward; Reuters coverage here, the Herald’s here.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Migration talks resuming (Updated)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
The thaw in Cuba-USA relations may come to a drastic end if Honduras descends into civil war after Pres.Zelaya's call for insurrection. Cuban intervention in the civil war can not be discounted. The question is if the sea/air lift capabilities of Venezuela and Cuba are being monitored right now. The situation can degenerate into a Central America war involving all the countries in the area with the possible exception of Costa Rica and Panama. Mexico is not immune to this conflict.
Vecino de NF
the thaw will turn to ice again sooner or later as cuba will again sabotage US efforts. history is prelude. that is, unless the elder permanently exits the scene. then there will be some space for negotiations.
right on. when will the U.S. learn that sticking your hand into a mouth of a pit bull is not a good idea?
US been sticking its nose in everyone's business for more than a century in LA, why not it's hand? mean old Cuba and innocent old America.
didn't US oppose the coup, so why do you assume Cuba will get involved. how will cuba intervene. much more likely USA will involve itself, as it has done in so many LA countries.
such desperation to see the end to any negotiations between cuba and usa; keep up the good work of the CANF
US wants access to deepwater Cuban port to return refugees, reuters report said.
What, isn't Gitmo good enough, or are they too busy torturing there to deal with refugees?
Anonymous 11:23AM,
Cuba can intervene by sending both troops and materiel into Nicaragua and then across the border into Honduras. Guatemala, and El Salvador can also be used for more limited support and infiltration operations. Cuba has very good Special Ops personnel that are trained to support "liberation" movements. Venezuela can provide the cash to finance the entire thing. The question remains whether Cuba is willing to forgo its traditional revolutionary role to build better relations with the USA.
The clash with the US in this scenario is preordained because of the US presence in Honduras (Palmerola). BTW Palmerola is an important drug surveillance post for an area of the Caribbean Sea that it's hard to get to by other means. Maybe that's what Chavez et alles are aiming for: the dismantling of the US drug surveillance infransture: first in Venezuela, then in Manta in Ecuador, and now in Palmerola in Honduras. Just thinking aloud!
BTW the CANF barb was uncalled for because you have no idea of my political affiliation.
Vecino de NF
Anonymous 11:23AM,
My main editorial point of view is that someone better get to Zelaya and tell him to cool his rhetoric if Cuba really wants to build better relations with the USA. Just like when Michael Corleone tells Frank Pentageli to make peace with the Rosato brothers so he can close an important deal with Hyman Roth (in Cuba notheless). Somebody decides to blow up a bus of GIs going to or coming from some local R&R and all bets are off for better Cuba and USA relations. Maybe someone is egging Zelaya on to derail this whole process.
This is just business not personal.
Vecino de NF
Vecino, Zelaya is just quoting from Article 3 of the Honduran Constitution:
“No one owes allegiance to an usurping government nor those who assume public office via force of arms or utilizing means and procedures that violate or circumvent what is in the Constitution and established by law. The acts taken by such authorities are null. The people have the right to recur to insurrection in order to defend the constitutional order.”
To be clear, insurrection is not the same as calling for violence. Zelaya did not do that. He called for strikes, for marches and for civil disobedience.
oh, looks like leftside is now a Honduran constitutional scholar...what about article 239? explain that one away leftside...
as far as the anon comments above, you're just a miserable alienated a--hole that seethes with so much anti-americanism you discredit yourself
Leftside,
Zelaya apparently called for "insurrection" as per the following quote published in today's El Nuevo Herald:
""No dejen las calles, que es el único espacio que nos han quitado, el pueblo tiene derecho a la insurrección, la huelga, las tomas, la manifestación'', dijo Zelaya en una rueda de prensa junto al presidente guatemalteco Alvaro Colom. "
That he wants to implement it through "marches and for civil disobedience." as you say is a question of tactics not of strategy. He wants to make Honduras ungovernable, and that only leads to civil strife and possibly civil war when the armed forces begins to side with one faction or another.
This is a very explosive situation because both sides feel justified to use any means necessary. Outside interference has the potential of making this a regional conflict. Do you think that this scenario is not likely at all or that if it happens it will not impact Cuba-US relations? If Cuba is interested in improving relations with the US, it should state publicly that this is an internal Honduran problem to be worked out by Hondurans through negotiations, and it should pressure Zelaya privately to mute his call for insurrection. Having said that it remains if Zelaya is not "all hat and no cattle" as they say down in Texas. We'll find out soon enough.
Vecino de NF
Anon 4:33, Article 239 does allow for the removal of a President who tries to change term limits. This has become the new golpista PR team's talking point - repeated about 20 times at the House Hearing on Honduras last week and in far too many media reports. The only problem is that Article 239 was never actually invoked by the Courts. In fact, it was never even mentioned once in an 81 page document. The reason it was not mentioned is simple - there is no evidence that Zelaya violated Article 239. He never proposed amending term limits and in fact, stated his objection to that idea several times (in El Pais and CNN prior to the vote) The Honduran pro-coup media conveniently ignored those comments. And of course, the non-binding poll said absolutely nothing about term limits. This is simply a lie manufactured for the purppses of providing an "easy explanation" to those without much inclination to actually check the Supreme Court's decision. Go check for yourself.
Vecino, Cuba is calling for the same thing the entire world is calling for - an immediate, unconditional reinstatement of President Zelaya. To say this is "an internal Honduran problem to be worked out by Hondurans through negotiations" is conceding that the coup will stand. There is simply nothing to talk about. The armed forces have admitted they acted "illegally" removing Zelaya from the country. The Supreme Court ordered that Zelaya be detained so that he could stand trial before a special tribunal of the Supreme Court. They said nothing about his removal from office. Only that judicial process, whereby the President has the right to due process, can produce a removal from office.
I hope, like everyone, that this can get resolved without more bloodshed (already 3 more opposition activists have been found murdered in the last couple days). But everyone knows that requires outside pressure. The US has, by far, the most cards to play and has done the absolute minimum up to this point. This is showing people the US is not serious and that other means may be needed. Simply put, if the US refuses to play its considerable diplomatic and economic cards, other actors are going to have to use the more blunt instruments at their disposal.
This matter simply can not be let to stand. It would set back the region 30 years and bring back democratic instability of a kind not seen in a while.
Leftside,
Could you please elaborate what you consider "more blunt instruments at their disposal"?
It's hard to imagine Zelaya being reinstated by any processes other than capitulation of Pres.Micheletti's government or another coup by Zelaya's sympathizers in the Honduras Armed Forces. Which one do you have in mind or do you want a Haiti solution with other Latin American countries invading Honduras and reinstating Zelaya?
Vecino de NF
No one on this Board is a Honduran constitutional scholar, so we have to make assumptions in rendering legal opinions.
If it is true that (A) Zelaya was disobeying the judgment of the Honduran Supreme Court and (B) Zelaya fired the military chief(s) who refused to carry out the poll/plebiscite (whatever you want to call it), then his removal appears legitimate and his substitution by the Vice President also appears to be legal. However, his physical expulsion seems to not have been legal. I think the military erred in removing the dingbat from the country. He should have been arrested and detained in Honduras in order to stand trial.
On another note, the tone and message of the U.S. government shifted dramatically in the days after Zelaya’s removal. It went from “he needs to be restored ya” to “can’t we just sit down and talk about it.” I am fairly certain that the saturation and work of Cuban and Venezuelan intelligence operatives in the government likely shifted the U.S.’s government opinion on the coup/removal. And this “shift” likely occurred after the new Honduran government was able to effectively communicate the work of the Cubans and Venezuelans, initially ignored by the State Dept, to the White House via SouthCom or Congress (or both).
Not Left, Not Right
Anon 6:41, there was only (very shaky) legal justification to arrest Zelaya and put him on trial before a special tribinal. There was no legal justification cited by the Courts to lead to a removal from office. None. Hence the manufactured "resignation" letter illegally voted on by Congress (and reliance on the non-relevant Article 239).
On another note, the tone and message of the U.S. government shifted dramatically in the days after Zelaya’s removal.
This is true. It has also been tremendously unhelpful. Again, to the extent that the US abrogates its leverage and responsibility, it will be taken up by other actors. Also, I know you all hate Hugo Chavez. The longer the US waffles and tries to play both sides, the more Cuba's/Venezuela's anti-Imperialist project will benefit.
With regard to Honduras, isn't everyone being unfair to Leftside? After all, he is just expressing the Cuban government's well known opposition to the overthrow of established governments, not to mention other violations of constitutinal punctilio. It's just not NICE to impugn the motives or sincerity of established legal scholars such as Lefty or the Blessed Che Guevara.
Leftside says: "This is true. It has also been tremendously unhelpful. Again, to the extent that the US abrogates its leverage and responsibility, it will be taken up by other actors. Also, I know you all hate Hugo Chavez. The longer the US waffles and tries to play both sides, the more Cuba's/Venezuela's anti-Imperialist project will benefit."
You cant be advocating for the US to use its leverage and responsibility, can you? That wouldn't jive with you Leftside. Please explain.
Not Left, Not Right
You cant be advocating for the US to use its leverage and responsibility, can you? That wouldn't jive with you Leftside. Please explain.
What is there to explain. Of course I want the US to use its leverage to support the will of the international community, and the American States in particular. What I don't want is the US to work against the region, as it so often has.
What's conflicting about your statement is that on the one hand you abhor US intervention in the region and then on the other hand you invoke intervention in order to restore your ideological ally. Truth suffers the same hypocrisy.
Not Left Not Right
NLNR, I thought I was clear. I am not against the US throwing its considerable weight around. I am against the US doing it unilaterally and against the wishes of the unanimous world/regional opinion (such as in Cuba). The US ought to be supporting regional conclusions, not working against them.
Post a Comment