Chávez dead

[Viking]

When allowed to return foreign oilfield service companies will make a fortune.

And then those shortsighted oil companies will get kicked out again.

No, seriously, there will be 10 years of work to catch up on.

Oilfield Service Company =/= Oil Company

I think we resolved this in the "Is Shell In Saudi Arabia" semantic shitstorm?

[Sheilbh]

The purpose of the SA commission was to establish a historical record of individual wrongdoings and sufferings.  Nobody contested that blacks couldn't vote or were beaten up by cops.

The Honduran commission does nothing like that.  It's a political excercise.  The OAS says Zelaya was a little wrong, the opposition was a little wrong, now let's split the difference and move on.

I disagree on the purpose. My view is that the South African purpose is in the title. To establish the truth beyond record to enable the country to move forward in the spirit of reconciliation - not of punishment and recrimination, but also to avoid Afrikaaners saying, years in the future, 'it wasn't all bad.'

I think that the Honduran Commission (as I say, made up of mostly Hondurans and administered by the OAS) was an attempt to do the same sort of thing. To establish, to use your phrase, institutional wrongdoings - who exceeded their constitutional powers and how. So it tells a 'national' narrative of what happened that everyone can agree to and it tries to enable the country to move beyond the crisis so that it doesn't define or unduly polarise their future politics.

I thought Portugal was the rarity in fully legalizing possession, whereas the typical European model was decriminalization--a parking ticket if you smoke your ganja in the wrong place.  I could be mistaken.

Well there's a difference between legalisation, decriminalisation and different policing policies. Decriminalisation is a legal step that abolishes penalties for a crime, which is different from legalisation or letting the police play it by ear.

No-one has legalised drugs in Europe, I think probably the Netherlands are the closest. The Portuguese and Czechs have decriminalised (but not legalised drugs), but I believe in both of those cases dealers are still prosecuted and addicts are required to go to treatment - I think only the Czechs have gone for the parking fine approach. Lots of countries, including the UK, are generally tolerant of pot if it's in a small amount. You'll normally have it confiscated and get a fine but I think that depends on context and it can lead to charges and a record. I think in Germany and the UK about 60% of drugs arrests are for pot.

Aside from that I think they do arrest people over it. But I think most European countries (not the UK) place more emphasis on treatment than punishment.

Regardless, the original point--that Europe, with its less draconian drug laws, does *not* contribute any less to organized crime in the source countries than the US does--still stand.

Possibly. I don't know enough to comment. My understanding is that most European cocaine comes via West Africa and most pot from the Maghreb - which don't seem as unstable or dangerous because of drugs as Central America, though obviously there's other issues in both areas.

[Admiral Yi]

So it tells a 'national' narrative of what happened that everyone can agree to and it tries to enable the country to move beyond the crisis so that it doesn't define or unduly polarise their future politics.

If it were a national narrative, the OAS wouldn't be involved, and readmission to the OAS would not be the quid pro quo.

It's a brokered deal.  You know Shelf, just because a group of people call themselves the Truth Commission doesn't guarantee what they say is the truth.

[Sheilbh]

If it were a national narrative, the OAS wouldn't be involved, and readmission to the OAS would not be the quid pro quo.

Why wouldn't the OAS be involved? From a European perspective it doesn't seem bizarre that if you've got two polarised sides arguing about fundamental issues of legitimacy of state action that you'd ask a multi-lateral body, like the EU, to help mediate. The OAS mediated (via the Costa Rican President) and set up the Commission at the request of Honduras, according to the deal.

Readmission, incidentally, wasn't quid pro quo. The Hondurans signed the accord had to put it into place - which would be observed by the OAS - and would then hope the international community recognised their efforts (which was code for getting back in). I think it's because the OAS member states would have to vote on readmission.

It's a brokered deal.  You know Shelf, just because a group of people call themselves the Truth Commission doesn't guarantee what they say is the truth.

Of course it was a brokered deal, that's what negotiations normally result in.

Which bit of their version do you dispute?

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not necessarily disputing anything.  I don't know what the constitutional procedure is in Honduras when a sitting president breeches the constitution.  I'm just not willing to grant the OAS the final word.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not necessarily disputing anything.  I don't know what the constitutional procedure is in Honduras when a sitting president breeches the constitution.  I'm just not willing to grant the OAS the final word.

Again it wasn't the OAS but an agreement by the parties involved in the conflict. Consider it arbitration, if not the 'truth' - the recommendations of the Commission included clarifying the constitution, which is apparently rather vague on impeachment, resignations and conflicts between the branches of government. And you may not respect or care for the OAS but perhaps they're viewed in a different way in Latin America.

In terms of constitutional breech it's obviously bad when a sitting President ignores Supreme Court rulings. But, I think it's far worse and more corrosive to democracy and the rule of law if the military, on receiving an arrest warrant for the President, storm the palace, deport him, forge a resignation letter and declare a temporary state of siege.

[CountDeMoney]

Yi hates international bodies.

[Jacob]

Yi hates international bodies.

It's just that Yi doesn't know the rules in Honduras, so naturally he can't trust the OAS on this.

[Admiral Yi]

Again it wasn't the OAS but an agreement by the parties involved in the conflict. Consider it arbitration, if not the 'truth' - the recommendations of the Commission included clarifying the constitution, which is apparently rather vague on impeachment, resignations and conflicts between the branches of government. And you may not respect or care for the OAS but perhaps they're viewed in a different way in Latin America.

I prefer to consider it a face-saving diplomatic gesture.

The OAS couldn't just readmit them as is.  So they get a slap on the wrist, and readmission.

[Admiral Yi]

It's just that Yi doesn't know the rules in Honduras, so naturally he can't trust the OAS on this.

Don't Raz me dude. 

I explained that they are not an impartial body because they were so quick to condemn the ousting of the president.

One also has to wonder about the ideological aspect after Paraguay was booted from Mercosur.

[Sheilbh]

The OAS couldn't just readmit them as is.  So they get a slap on the wrist, and readmission.

But again there was no quid pro quo. From what I can gather the OAS was always explicit that they wouldn't readmit Honduras until there was full re-democratisation. This deal was about all sorts leading into and following the new elections and included the Truth Commission. So it was part of that process.

[Admiral Yi]

But again there was no quid pro quo.

This deal ... included the Truth Commission.

[Jacob]

Don't Raz me dude. 

I explained that they are not an impartial body because they were so quick to condemn the ousting of the president.

One also has to wonder about the ideological aspect after Paraguay was booted from Mercosur.

Shouldn't they condemn the ousting of a democratically elected president by the military quickly? Were there any bodies that you respect that did not condemn the ouster? I mean the EU, the UN, and the US all condemned the coup. Are they likewise not impartial?

[Admiral Yi]

Shouldn't they condemn the ousting of a democratically elected president by the military quickly? Were there any bodies that you respect that did not condemn the ouster? I mean the EU, the UN, and the US all condemned the coup. Are they likewise not impartial?

He wasn't ousted by the military.  He was ousted by the Supreme Court.

I don't know what the EU or UN said so can't comment. 

My recollection is that the US response was a little ambiguous at the time.

But if the facts are so cut and dried, there was hardly a need for a Truth Commission, was there?

[Sheilbh]

But again there was no quid pro quo.

This deal ... included the Truth Commission.

It was part of the deal negotiated by the two parties in Honduras (the negotiations, on the request of the OAS, were handled by Costa Rica's President), that they would ask the OAS to run a Truth Commission for them, another goal of the deal was to get readmitted to the OAS. Here's the relevant text from the agreement:

He wasn't ousted by the military.  He was ousted by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued a warrant for his arrest. The military arrested him and immediately deported him, without trial. Congress unanimously accepted his resignation, but the letter was a forgery, and appointed a new President.

My recollection is that the US response was a little ambiguous at the time.

Not really. Obama said it was a coup. Joint military operations and some visas were suspended, non-humanitarian aid was cut. Apparently they didn't characterise it as a 'military coup' because in the US that cuts all aid. Republicans attacked Obama for it.

It's also worth noting the US entirely supported the agreement reached by the parties.

But if the facts are so cut and dried, there was hardly a need for a Truth Commission, was there?

Of course there was. That's the point I've been making about what Truth Commissions are for.