While Lúcio Gutierrez awaits asylum in the Brazilian Embassy in Quito, the OAS is rightfully concerned what this means for the hemisphere and democracy in the Americas and the Miami Herald expresses their concern as well. I'm certainly not a fan of golpes de las calles, golpes das ruas or coups des rues, but they are becoming an alarming trend in the Americas. While I'm glad to see that they are expressing concern, I can only contrast this to their silence when a much more violent and deadly threat to democracy occured last year in Haiti.
Nevertheless, the optimist in me wants to find these comments inspired by their fecklessness in Haiti:
''The OAS cannot look the other way,'' said Peruvian Ambassador Alberto Borea, noting that supporting Ecuador's way of changing government would send a signal that it's normal to dismiss presidents this way.
Borea and Panamanian Ambassador Aristides Royo voiced doubts over the legality of Gutiérrez's ouster, with Borea noting that 62 members of Congress had met to consider Gutiérrez's ouster out of 100 members.
"The question is, those 38 that did not participate in the meeting, were they duly convened?''
The Herald editorial also skewers the Bush administration on their alleged commitment to democracy:
Now, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for a restoration of order. Fine, but where was U.S. diplomacy when the Gutiérrez government began making a mockery of democracy months ago? It's hard to see how the chaos in Ecuador promotes the Bush administration's goal of furthering democracy around the globe.
That is something I have been asking repeatedly over the past few months.
One stray thought: I love Brazil, but whether it's Alfredo Stroessner or Lúcio Gutierrez (an inapt comparison to be sure) can they please stop giving these guys asylum?
Well, to Brazil it is a matter of following our own Constitution:
"Art. 4º A República Federativa do Brasil rege-se nas suas relações internacionais pelos seguintes princípios:
[...]
X - concessão de asilo político."
The Constitution says that political asylus is one of the principles that rules our international relations, and, IMHO, there is nothing wrong with that and taking the guy out of Ecuador only will help their nation.
Posted by: Alves | April 23, 2005 at 01:33 AM
Well, it doesn't mean that they have to grant it to everyone. I don't think that Gutierrez is going to be quiet and stay out of Ecuadorian politics while in Brazil, when he eventually gets there.
The example that really irritates me, however, is Stroessner. He was a monstrous dictator who is enjoying a comfortable retirement instead of answering for his actions. I don't think that should be the purpose of granting asylum. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Posted by: Randy Paul | April 23, 2005 at 12:29 PM
Not messing with Ecuatorian politics will probably be one of the conditions of the asylum.
Posted by: Alves | April 23, 2005 at 05:46 PM
How about this interpretation? The US wants Lucio in power, precisely because he's not a strong, or good leader. They tolerate him when he's in power, and want him back once he's ousted. I'm not sure what the US interest would be -- I don't think it's oil -- maybe so they can have a free hand with what they are doing in Colombia? They don't want an Ecuadorian president who is questioning what is going on out of Manta.
If you look at it this way, the current US position is consistent.
Pamela
Posted by: Pamela | April 23, 2005 at 09:41 PM