There may be a deal to bring the coup in Honduras to an end. From the Latin American Herald Tribune:
Negotiators for ousted Honduras President Manuel Zelaya and current Honduras President Roberto Micheletti have reached an agreement to bring an end to a months-long political standoff triggered by the June 28 events that led to the departure of Zelaya.
The deal, set to be signed on Friday, leaves it up to Congress to decide on Zelaya’s reinstatement — with a recommendation from the Supreme Court — and also includes several points contained in a proposal made by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias in his role as mediator in the crisis.
The deal could allow the ousted president to serve out the remaining three months of his term. If Congress agrees, control of the army would shift to the electoral court, and the presidential election set for Nov. 29 would be recognized by both sides.
Al Giordano is less sanguine about the deal:
US officials and commercial media organizations are popping champagne corks prematurely over a reported US-brokered ”œdeal” to return Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to (limited) power, but the two sides that reportedly signed the agreement already disagree over what exactly it says.
Micheletti’s claim that a Congressional vote to restore Zelaya would require Supreme Court authorization is a flat out lie, according to a source with Zelaya inside his Brazilian Embassy refuge in Tegucigalpa: ”œThat is what the golpistas have put out, but that is NOT the accord… The Supreme Court gives its non-binding opinion to the Congress, but the key is that all of this takes time, time that the golpistas want to keep taking.”
The real problem could be the authoritarian Supreme Court. Micheletti’s invention of a non-existent clause in the agreement, one that requires the court’s approval of it, points to where the stalling tactic will come from. This is the same Supreme Court that carried out the coup d’etat on June 28 and has micro-managed the regime’s affairs all summer and fall on a level that would not be appropriate or legal in most countries. Because Honduras’ 1982 Constitution is such a self-conflicted document with many articles that contradict each other, the court has been cherry-picking which laws to discard and which to interpret, often badly.