I have only one exception to that statement. I'm underlining that one below. (And the title is kind of screwy--hard to understand, since Zelaya is not a "premier" but a president.) The boldface marks wording that tells THE TRUTH about events in Honduras, in notable contrast to crap we read in the corpo/fascist press.
----
Coup leader defies ex-premier's demands in Honduras standoff
Ousted Honduras president stays in Brazilian embassy as coup leader kills hopes of crisis solution
Peter Beaumont, Foreign Affairs Editor
The Observer, Sunday 27 September 2009
Hopes for a rapid end to the crisis in Honduras appeared to have been dashed as the leader of the coup that removed President Manuel Zelaya insisted that the ousted premier could only leave the Brazilian embassy where he has taken refuge if he was offered asylum by another country.
"Interim" president Roberto Micheletti also made clear his government would not allow a weekend visit of several foreign ministers who have offered to help resolve the crisis and remained unrepentant about plunging the country into a cycle of demonstrations, violence and curfews.
But he did acknowledge one mistake. "It was an error to have sent the president, or ex-president (Zelaya), out of the country," he told the Associated Press.
As the war of words escalates, Zelaya, who secretly returned to Honduras last week after being driven to the border in his pyjamas three months ago, has demanded that he be reinstated until his term in office runs out with elections in November. Despite talks to broker a deal, both sides reported no progress.
Micheletti also denied reports that he had invited former US president Jimmy Carter to mediate. It had also been suggested that Costa Rican president Oscar Arias, who mediated during previous talks, may get involved. But he announced on Friday that he had no immediate plans to travel to Honduras.
Tens of thousands of Micheletti's supporters – camisas blancas, or white shirts – demonstrated noisily in the streets of the capital, Tegucigalpa, following months of demonstrations by Zelaya's supporters in the anti-coup national resistance movement.
The white shirts' chants outside the UN's offices in Tegucigalpa reflected what Micheletti would most like the deposed president to do. "Come outside, Mel!" they screamed, holding their banners. "Send Mel to jail!" There were also calls for Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, to "take this mule".
Zelaya – at least for now – is staying put inside the embassy, bolstered by Brazil's promise that he can stay as a "guest as long as is necessary". Nor is the international community listening to the pro-coup crowds either. The UN security council, meeting in emergency session on Friday, demanded that Micheletti cease his harassment of those inside the surrounded embassy.
Subsisting on biscuits and sleeping on chairs, Zelaya appears to have weathered the first storm of his return, when it seemed that the embassy might be invaded and that Honduras might descend into widespread violence. The reformist president was removed from power for attempting to hold a non-binding referendum on the constitution, a move his enemies said was proof that Zelaya wanted to stand for a second consecutive term. The convention on the constitution would have taken place after his term of office had ended.
Zelaya now insists on a return to office until elections on 29 November. It is precisely this that Micheletti seeks to prevent. What started as a dramatic and dangerous confrontation has settled into an at times surreal standoff that shows little sign of ending soon.(MORE)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/27/honduras-coup-leader-defies-zelaya-----
It's something when you almost weep upon reading a REAL news article--it is so rare.
--"Interim" president (coupster Micheletti) is correctly put in quotation marks.
--Micheletti and his fellow coupsters are correctly identified as the guilty parties for "plunging the country into a cycle of demonstrations, violence and curfews" and they are correctly described as "unrepentant" for creating this mayhem.
--the article very correctly points out that there have been "months of demonstrations by Zelaya's supporters" (implication--and only one by the "white shirts")
--the article further emphasizes the wrongness of the coup, and its unrepresentative nature, with "Nor is the international community listening to the pro-coup crowds...". (Implication--they are a minority.)
--the article correctly points out that Zelaya (and those with him) are suffering hardship ("subsisting on biscuits and sleeping on chairs"--also the UN Security Council resolution telling the coupsters to stop harassing the embassy; the two things combined gives you a brief but accurate picture of conditions in the embassy).
--the article correctly describes Zelaya as "the reformist president."
And, finally, the one that makes me almost weep...
--the article correctly describes one of Zelaya's reformist proposals---
"a non-binding referendum on the constitution", correctly describes the accusation that he wanted to stand for a second term as coming from
"his enemies" and then explains, briefly and succinctly, the truth :
"The convention on the constitution would have taken place after his term of office had ended". (The referendum had nothing to do with term limits, and Zelaya could not have benefited from it.)
My one argument with this article is this: The article says Zelaya has "...weathered the first storm of his return, when it seemed that the embassy might be invaded
and that Honduras might descend into widespread violence."
My objection is that the violence has been entirely one-sided: the coup military and police beating up, tear gassing and shooting live ammunition and rubber bullets at protestors, some of whom have died; storming into homes and dragging people out; detaining several thousand political prisoners, and possibly ordering selective death squad killings. The protestors and Zelaya are firmly committed to non-violent resistance, and have already been tested, time and again, on their commitment to peaceful means. "Widespread violence" would likely only have come from the police and the military, because those are the sole sources of violence to this point. The sentence implies that all would "descend into widespread violence." There is no evidence to support this. It is a nuance, to be sure. But I think it is an important one. The article should have been more careful to indicate who has been beating up and killing whom, and who would likely continue this criminal behavior on a "widespread" basis.
Aside from that, kudos to The Guardian and its Foreign Affairs Editor and reporter Peter Beaumont!
:applause: :bounce: :applause:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
