Monday, September 28, 2009

Brazil is Violating International Law analysis of Vienna

I have spent this morning looking at what is and is not permitted of an embassy. 

First, it seems that a state at any time can REVOKE their right to be here, but they have to give reasonable notice before the removable of immunity.  Thus the ten days given by the government.  Brazil is wrong to ignore this because Honduras can legally enter the embassy after that time according to the Vienna Convention.

Article 43 speaks about the ending of rights of a diplomatic agent.

Article 45 speaks about the breaking of diplomatic relations which Brazil did when it removed the Honduran ambassador and closed the embassy.

Lula de Silva told Zelaya several days ago to not do anything to provoke a legitimation of invasion of the embassy by the soldiers. 

Since that time he has continually done provocative acts that have went unreprimanded. He has called for civil war, he has called for random acts of violence, he has made false accusations against a third state (Israel) claiming that they are trying to assasinate him.  All of these acts are provocative acts and embassies cannot be used to call for insurrection or to direct a civil war in a host country.  This violates the Vienna Convention.

Brazil's foreign minster said that any threat to Zelaya would be a violation of International law, but it would actually not be, because Zelaya is recognized as a citizen of Honduras, not Brazil and Brazil has not declared him as a guest or as a asylee and thus far is refusing to do either, claiming that they do not recognize the government...but they do recognize Honduras and they recognize that they have Zelaya in their embassy and that he is a citizen of Honduras wanted for crimes against the state.  So it is actually in their best interest to declare to the international community what Zelaya's status is.  This will protect them from being later accused of violating the soveriegnty of the host state of Honduras.  They broke relations with Honduras when they removed the Honduran embassy in Brazil so it is questionable as to what their diplomatic status is in Honduras.  I believe it is in the best interest of a neutral third party like Panama to determine what should happen there and for declarations to be made in regards to Zelaya.

The US has announced that it was provocative and irresponsible for Zelaya to return in that fashion and to involve Brazil in his little tirade.  What they aren't recognizing is their own involvement in it ...namely their ambassador, Hugo Llorens and his involvement in this mess.  The US ambassador seems to be trying to provoke a war in Honduras.  He by far has been the worst representative for the US that anyone could have hoped for.  We need to send Hugo Llorens packing and get a new representative.  Time for US citizens and Hondurans to protest in front of the US embassy and in Washington and demand his recall.

Why Closing Radio Globo and Cholusat Sur Was RIGHT!

I have been hearing some serious complaints about the closing of Radio Globo and Cholusatsur...and calling it a violation of freedom of press.  If they were not trying to instigate violence I would agree with you, but no radio or media outlet is allowed to create violence in a country whether it is the US or Honduras.

The FCC has revoked licenses of radio stations for things like deceptiveness and lack of candor, evasiveness, is a link to one of those stories.

This gospel station had their license revoked by the FCC in the US for violating public safety...sounds a bit like what Cholusatsur and Globo were doing

These are but two of the many that were available on Google.

So if these can have their license revoked for the things that are clearly much less serious than trying to cause a civil war...remember the fine for Janet Jackson showing her boob on television, then why can't Honduras revoke these licenses for more serious offenses.

Now on the prohibition of public assembly without a permit.

In the US the constitution guarantees the right to assemble peaceably ...the last word being has to be peaceful.  In Honduras, the majority of the demonstrations have NOT been peaceful in any way, shape or form.  They have been quite violent.  So those types of demonstrations are not protected even in the US as a right.  Not only that the US requires a PERMIT in most municipalities to demonstrate even peacefully and that is regardless of the environment politically in the country.  So why should Honduras be held to a different standard? I think they are well within their rights to restrict violent demonstrations and require permits.

The curfew has been a need for public safety within reason.  Last night it was placed at 9pm to 5 am which is reasonable.  The government thus far has been very flexible with people who get caught out after curfew if there is a reason for it...

In the US I would like to point out that some municipalities have permenent curfews directed at teenagers.  For instance teens cannot congregate during certain hours at Arbor Place Mall in Douglasville, Georgia.  In another municipality there is a requirement that no teen be out after 10 pm on weeknights and no later than 12 am on weekends.  Is this a restriction on freedom? Clearly it is, but it is protected also due to the fact that it is reasonable.  So why cannot Honduras protect the safety of its population by establishing a curfew with limited exeptions?

Freedoms are freedoms as long as they do not impede other people's freedoms.  Throwing rocks and swinging sticks is not a permitted freedom because it endangers others.

As controversial as it might seem it is the right thing to prevent a civil war from breaking out because the general population is growing very tired of the violence by the Zelayaistas and the calls for violence from the embassy of Brazil by Zelaya....very recently individuals almost were able to reach the embassy and their intent was to remove Zelaya to bring him to Honduran soil to the authorities...and I am talking about the white shirted peaceful folks....

How smart does one have to be to understand this is reasonable?